I've wanted to start TEW for WFRP 2ed, but then screwed up the dates...

Now I have 11 years of spare time before TEW (the first one) even starts (2513). Instead of narrating I've decided to run a mini-campaign, where my players will join the upstart Kislevite noble who plans to conquer a large portion of Border Princes with the help of Nuln and Averland.

The main theme of the campaign is of course WAR. Also there will be backstabbings, hidden cults in the camp, political fights and players will have to manouver their allies carefully (they join the noble by saving him in Nuln, and he makes them his "inner circle").

Now my questions are:

- How to best work battles into my campaign, without them dragging the game too much? Is there an actual huge battle system for WFRP?

- Ideas about political intrigue inside the war camp. The noble's force will consist of mercenaries, including Dwarfs, and forces from Nuln and Averland. Also some Kislevites. I'd like to throw some assasination scenarios in.

- How can I picture Border Princes, so that they'll feel distinct? I know that it's mostly hills and valleys with ocasional fortified town thrown in. I'd like to spice it up a bit.

- Aside from WAR, I'd like for my players to research some intrigue's, raid tombs and generally feel the atmosphere of WFRP. What can I do to achieve this?

I think this is a good idea and a solid basis for a campaign. When it comes to working the battles into your games a couple options come to mind. Firstly, I would look to include the PCs as much as possible in the strategy meetings before the coming battle. This way they can give their input and you can even have them take some Strategy/tactics rolls. Furthermore, this gives you the opportunity to introduce and let them get to know some key NPCs better.

When actually depicting the battles, I would keep it all narrative outside of what happens to the PCs. Maybe have a large map of the battlefield on the table with the battle lines drawn and plans outlined on it. Then, during the battle use miniatures or wooden pawns etc. to illustrate how the battle actually unfolds. Additionally, you should keep the focus on the PCs and only occasionally cut away to some other NPCs or "the big picture" to describe the battle raging around them. The NPCs the PCs met at the strategy meeting should work well with this.

Regarding political intrigue with Nuln and Averland you definitely should take a look at Rob Harper's Averland's Disputed Electorship https://www.dropbox.com/s/6rt5xw1o5m6utku/Averheim%20Electoral%20Crisis.docx

Regarding Border Princes. I don't have Renegade Crowns - that could have several ideas regarding this. But I would strive to make them distinct from each other through the people and businesses that populate them. An interesting NPC can leave his imprint so to speak on the area where he or she is found. Interesting buildings/locations/businesses also make them distinct. For example, a region with a silver mine draws related enterprises to the area.

Oh, and btw, I love the name of your blog.

I think this is a good idea and a solid basis for a campaign. When it comes to working the battles into your games a couple options come to mind. Firstly, I would look to include the PCs as much as possible in the strategy meetings before the coming battle. This way they can give their input and you can even have them take some Strategy/tactics rolls. Furthermore, this gives you the opportunity to introduce and let them get to know some key NPCs better.

When actually depicting the battles, I would keep it all narrative outside of what happens to the PCs. Maybe have a large map of the battlefield on the table with the battle lines drawn and plans outlined on it. Then, during the battle use miniatures or wooden pawns etc. to illustrate how the battle actually unfolds. Additionally, you should keep the focus on the PCs and only occasionally cut away to some other NPCs or "the big picture" to describe the battle raging around them. The NPCs the PCs met at the strategy meeting should work well with this.

Regarding political intrigue with Nuln and Averland you definitely should take a look at Rob Harper's Averland's Disputed Electorship https://www.dropbox.com/s/6rt5xw1o5m6utku/Averheim%20Electoral%20Crisis.docx

Regarding Border Princes. I don't have Renegade Crowns - that could have several ideas regarding this. But I would strive to make them distinct from each other through the people and businesses that populate them. An interesting NPC can leave his imprint so to speak on the area where he or she is found. Interesting buildings/locations/businesses also make them distinct. For example, a region with a silver mine draws related enterprises to the area.

Oh, and btw, I love the name of your blog.

Thank you very much d6 Evil Men. I really like your nick, it just screams WFRP.

As for the ideas I like them also. I've actually asked for an idea on the Strike to Stun forum and they also gave me a lot of cool tips, but your battle and BP thoughts are really good.

I have Renegade Crowns and will use them to create a series of BP's, every single one will be unique. Of course the main idea is that the player swill have to conquer them for the Prince.

However I don't want to bore my players during the actual battle. A couple of years ago I've run a military-oriented campaign called "The Lord of Winter" and it turned out okay, altough the narrated parts were a bit overblown and I could tell that my PC's were getting bored sometimes. I want to avoid that here but at the same time keep the naaration and the imminent threat of danger at the right levels. During actual battles should I run them trough a series of short duels or should I use some sort of simplified combat system?

When it comes to the PCs' combat I wouldn't necessarily look for a simplified system. Just make the basic opponents mooks that go down with a a swing or two. And you always have other options to keep the action flowing. For example, a PC strikes an opponent who staggers backwards a couple of steps and then the PC's fellow soldiers crowd the opponent and the PC is free to move on. I would seek to keep the PCs combats interesting and central to the success of the overall battle. Meaning they should, after cutting down some basic mooks, face "a boss fight" - like disabling a war machine or facing an enemy commander etc.

A large battle doesn't have to be all about fighting either. Make a PC carry a message from one commander to another. Have them carry a wounded NPC to safety. Have them protect a valuable strategic asset (like a war machine etc.).

If you are afraid of having your players become bored, why not assign a unit from the Kislevite's army to each of them. The players then have the possibility/responsibility to narrate how their units win or lose. Alternately, you can have the players momentarily take the roles of NPCs. For example, to emphasize the terrible power of a monster on the enemy's side, have the players take the roles of friendly soldiers who are then swiftly slaughtered by the monster. The PCs have to make their way across the battle field to the rampaging monster.

When it comes to the PCs' combat I wouldn't necessarily look for a simplified system. Just make the basic opponents mooks that go down with a a swing or two. And you always have other options to keep the action flowing. For example, a PC strikes an opponent who staggers backwards a couple of steps and then the PC's fellow soldiers crowd the opponent and the PC is free to move on. I would seek to keep the PCs combats interesting and central to the success of the overall battle. Meaning they should, after cutting down some basic mooks, face "a boss fight" - like disabling a war machine or facing an enemy commander etc.

A large battle doesn't have to be all about fighting either. Make a PC carry a message from one commander to another. Have them carry a wounded NPC to safety. Have them protect a valuable strategic asset (like a war machine etc.).

If you are afraid of having your players become bored, why not assign a unit from the Kislevite's army to each of them. The players then have the possibility/responsibility to narrate how their units win or lose. Alternately, you can have the players momentarily take the roles of NPCs. For example, to emphasize the terrible power of a monster on the enemy's side, have the players take the roles of friendly soldiers who are then swiftly slaughtered by the monster. The PCs have to make their way across the battle field to the rampaging monster.

I like that idea and will definetly use it. It could give combat a certain cinematic feel. Also my plan from the very beginning was to give PC's command over certain units, or at least make some of them second-in command. For example I have a Rune Apprentice whom I plan to insert into unit of Shieldbreakers. A Nordland Nobleman will be a part of a llight cavalry unit. He's got a drinking habit, and the commander of the unit, who's a hard-ass common soldier, will have a problem with that. Finally I have an Ostlander Merc, whom I plan to make a leader of a frontline, suicide-like, we-are-always-first-in-the-breach unit of swordsmen. Still don't know which role should I assign to a Tilean Fencer. Any ideas?

Bodyguard to the Tilean perhaps?

Bodyguard to the Tilean perhaps?

The Prince is a Kislevite. I was thinking some sort of light troop or maybe just put a chainmail on him and send him along the rest of the infantry. I don't want his player to miss all the fun.

A. This works. Perhaps they could be rescued by the Kislevite's competitor or a local authority who then wants them to infiltrate the Kislevite's warparty. Maybe the competitor even goes as far to provide an opportunity for them to save the Kislevite's life just so that he then hires them.

B. Trials can be fun. I think there is a trial in Ashes of Middenheim and, I think, in the new Enemy Within. Also, there are some rules in Sigmar's Heirs. Also, have you considered that the guards were actually fake - maybe the Crime Lords men?

C. Sounds good.

Additionally, consider giving them an interesting cell mate or two that can give them some interesting information or use them to foreshadow what is to come. An imprisoned ex-mercenary can be a source for all kinds of interesting leads.

A. This works. Perhaps they could be rescued by the Kislevite's competitor or a local authority who then wants them to infiltrate the Kislevite's warparty. Maybe the competitor even goes as far to provide an opportunity for them to save the Kislevite's life just so that he then hires them.

B. Trials can be fun. I think there is a trial in Ashes of Middenheim and, I think, in the new Enemy Within. Also, there are some rules in Sigmar's Heirs. Also, have you considered that the guards were actually fake - maybe the Crime Lords men?

C. Sounds good.

Additionally, consider giving them an interesting cell mate or two that can give them some interesting information or use them to foreshadow what is to come. An imprisoned ex-mercenary can be a source for all kinds of interesting leads.

These are all cool ideas. I think I'll go with the trial, but...

I love my players, I really do. The thing is that they sometimes act without thinking and I'm afraid that this will be the case here. I can already see th Nordlander saying a few choice words on the trial and then it's gallows time, just like with that Town Watch incident. All they had to do was to give them their purses and nobody would get hurt, but of course you'll sooner win in a lottery, than make a PC part with his gold.

I just know that there will be trouble, not to mention it's their word (and they're all outsider) against that of the Town Watch. They don't have any witnesses, they are new in the city and they are all of "questionable" repute.

Oh and then there's the Neiglish Rot. If that PC won't get back his amulet soon, there will be trouble.

So it went rather well. They've defended themselves abyssmaly badly, but the evidence were on their side so... no gallows for them. This time. Now it's infiltrating the noble's manor time. I spy shenanigans ahead.

Again thanks for the tips.

Keep us posted on how it goes.

Keep us posted on how it goes.

Will do. This is shaping to become a very interesting game.

Tommorow it begins. They're about to rescue the Prince and will leave Nuln, as basically they've become the most wanted men in the city and everyone wants to get them!

I'm very excited about the comming weeks. There's only one problem. I don't know how should I run the opposite forces? Given that the Prince's army will be 10000 strong, I need to make his enemies rather intimidating, I don't want for my game to loose its edge and become predictable. What sort of forces would they face in BP's? I know that it would be mostly men and greenskins, but what about Chaos or Beastmen? Should the army be constantly under hit and run attacks by the bandits and Wolf Riders? Should enemy have mages or even a daemonic support or should I make them as mundane and down to earth as possible?

I think it is in Hero's Call that there are rules for mass battles. They take quite a narrative approach, rather than forcing players to take part in lots of individual combats.

There are also rules for extended, combined, party dice rolls. So the battle is resolved by a single roll. The difficulty may be something like this: 4 purple dice for the 4 main enemy regiments, 6 black dice for the darkness, rain, low morale, low supplies, injured troops and enemy champion. The players each contribute 1 blue dice, to add to the single blue dice that their army has. The players then describe what they're going to do to even the odds, either before the battle or during it. So the bezerker can go bezerk, allowing him to change his blue dice to red. He's also going to charge around the battlefield bellowing challenges to enemy champion - which grants the party an extra 2 white dice to their pool. The scribe is able to find some additional supplies to distribute to the players' allies before the battle, which contributes some white dice, etc.

So you can take a good few minutes building the dice pool, describing what everyone is doing and how the battle begins. Then roll the dice, and then work out what each dice result means. The white dice roll well - so the bezerker cuts down the enemy champion, the black dice give lots of bad results, but the purple dice are surprisingly not bad: it must be that the enemy army was really demotivated and looking for excuses to break, not putting up much of a fight. This battle will go down in legend as one where more of your allies died from drowning in the mud than being killed by opponents. (Not necessarily true, but a reflection of what sticks in the minds of the survivors.)

I've done quite a few "mass combat" type of scenarios with my group. None of the rules variations I have tried have been perfect.

I tried a strategic battle with a gridmap etc. It took too long. It was ok as a culmination of the campaign but I doubt I'll use it again.

I tried something more narrative, but then the players feel a bit divorced from the action or they have too much influence over what happens. In narrative combat it is harder to say "no" to players, which easily leads to them managing to influence combat on a level they should not. In addition I notice my players tend to argue much more with me over my narration of what happens and how they are allowed to influence it.

I still would say I prefer narrative combat. Lately I have mostly just faded it into the background while concentrating on the bit the players are attempting to accomplish. If the combat is resolved purely through narrative dice I make sure that there is always a risk to the characters but that they generally can't die from it. Having characters die from one roll seems a bit cheap and unsatisfying so I generally go for handing our Critical Wounds when Chaos Stars are rolled.

During one engagement, whenever a Chaos Star was rolled I drew a Critical and informed the players that either one of them could volunteer to receive it, or a number of men equal to the severity died. This allowed the players to chose how much they helped in the battle by risking their own life and limbs.

I've done quite a few "mass combat" type of scenarios with my group. None of the rules variations I have tried have been perfect.

I tried a strategic battle with a gridmap etc. It took too long. It was ok as a culmination of the campaign but I doubt I'll use it again.

I tried something more narrative, but then the players feel a bit divorced from the action or they have too much influence over what happens. In narrative combat it is harder to say "no" to players, which easily leads to them managing to influence combat on a level they should not. In addition I notice my players tend to argue much more with me over my narration of what happens and how they are allowed to influence it.

I still would say I prefer narrative combat. Lately I have mostly just faded it into the background while concentrating on the bit the players are attempting to accomplish. If the combat is resolved purely through narrative dice I make sure that there is always a risk to the characters but that they generally can't die from it. Having characters die from one roll seems a bit cheap and unsatisfying so I generally go for handing our Critical Wounds when Chaos Stars are rolled.

During one engagement, whenever a Chaos Star was rolled I drew a Critical and informed the players that either one of them could volunteer to receive it, or a number of men equal to the severity died. This allowed the players to chose how much they helped in the battle by risking their own life and limbs.

I like that and I'll probably use the narrative approach as well. In fact th ePC's won't even know how the rest of the battle unfolds. After all, there were no radios back then and runners took a long time to get to their destinations. I was also thinking on basing the losses on PC's "command" skill rolls. What do you think?