I am playing with the idea of running a Mass Combat scenario, as a side story for a game.

Act 1 of the game will see the Rebel players working with a resistance group gaining info and strategic tips to help with an upcoming battle with the overlords on a planet. Player rolls in their areas of speciality will help build the dice pool for the battle.

Act 2 will see the actual battle - but the players' characters won't actually take place in the battle, as they will be busy doing a separate, covert raid (see Act 3). However, the players will be doing the rolls for the battle to see the outcome.

Act 3 will be the covert missions the Rebellion actually sent the players to do, using the uprising as distraction. The outcome of the battle will determine how easy/hard their covert missions will be.

I was wondering if anyone has run a similar game? How did it pan out? Any tips for me?

Sex in advance.

Best advice I can offer here is that you should look at the mass combat in Friends Like These , and then make sure that you don't do it like that.

2 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Best advice I can offer here is that you should look at the mass combat in Friends Like These , and then make sure that you don't do it like that.

Yeah, I have Lead by Example and will run it from those rules.

What I meant was that Friends Like These sets up a mass combat that has a predetermined path. No matter how well they do in Stage I, it will go to Stage II, the results only alter the timing and a few bits of background detail. Then repeat this four more times. Then you get to the end, the good guys just win and the bad guys just get away, pretty much regardless of what the PCs do. In fact, FLT shouldn't have even bothered with mass combat and should have just had a narrative battle in the background. If you're going to have a mass combat, make it actually matter and don't have a predetermined course for the outcome--let success or failure actually mean something.

I ran the game Saturday night using the Mass Combat rules from LbE as the overarching story of the combat (pretty much Claustrophobia from SoR). The players actions during the combat helped added bonus dice to the Mass Combat check.

Long story short, the last Mass Combat check of the game resulted in a fail with a Despair The roll before was a success, so they took the base they were after, but the facility they were trying to capture was destroyed, leading me to a great plot point to play with for the next game.

It was a lot of fun to run!

On ‎9‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 6:03 AM, HappyDaze said:

What I meant was that Friends Like These sets up a mass combat that has a predetermined path. No matter how well they do in Stage I, it will go to Stage II, the results only alter the timing and a few bits of background detail. Then repeat this four more times. Then you get to the end, the good guys just win and the bad guys just get away, pretty much regardless of what the PCs do. In fact, FLT shouldn't have even bothered with mass combat and should have just had a narrative battle in the background. If you're going to have a mass combat, make it actually matter and don't have a predetermined course for the outcome--let success or failure actually mean something.

Thank you for posting this Happy. I haven't read through it more than once, but is it really that railroad? I haven't used it yet but I was going to in a game pretty soon and I don't like it if the rolls are meaningless. I had assumed that in the subtext it would be a variable outcome battle, but if it's not then I have to rethink mass combat so that it can be a different outcome based on what happens. So it sounds like you need to have some conditions to be met in order for each phase to have some ability to change things. You would have to be open to dynamic circumstances, but also just the basic outcomes Win, Lose, Draw. Phase 1 ends in a Win for Active, what does this do to the next Phase? You could use something like Most # of Phases = Win, or winning Phase 4 will determine the battle. The whole quidditch thing where you can win by the most Phases or by taking the Must-Win Phase.

On 9/7/2017 at 6:03 AM, HappyDaze said:

What I meant was that Friends Like These sets up a mass combat that has a predetermined path. No matter how well they do in Stage I, it will go to Stage II, the results only alter the timing and a few bits of background detail. Then repeat this four more times. Then you get to the end, the good guys just win and the bad guys just get away, pretty much regardless of what the PCs do. In fact, FLT shouldn't have even bothered with mass combat and should have just had a narrative battle in the background. If you're going to have a mass combat, make it actually matter and don't have a predetermined course for the outcome--let success or failure actually mean something.

I largely agree with you, but the whole basis of the mass combat rules is that the GM should determine where the combat is going to end. This does not always mean wipe out the enemy. At Hoth the objective was to retreat with as many forces as possible. The battle was predetermined who would win. The question is how many troops, and how much equipment escapes. It ran much the same way in Escape from Arda. Friends like these was slightly harder to swallow because of how the Rebels win in the end, but followed the same format. I want to see them use an adventure with Mass Combat where the rebels win, or where the outcome isn't predetermined.

2 hours ago, Edgookin said:

I largely agree with you, but the whole basis of the mass combat rules is that the GM should determine where the combat is going to end. This does not always mean wipe out the enemy. At Hoth the objective was to retreat with as many forces as possible. The battle was predetermined who would win. The question is how many troops, and how much equipment escapes. It ran much the same way in Escape from Arda. Friends like these was slightly harder to swallow because of how the Rebels win in the end, but followed the same format. I want to see them use an adventure with Mass Combat where the rebels win, or where the outcome isn't predetermined.

Yeah if it gets to be where the players know the end is predetermined you will see them begin to be conservative in their actions, they will try to gather up their household goods and get ready to evac, or they will see the writing on the wall as far as their side winning and maybe take a more passive approach to minimize loss for the PC's. I think there will be battles where the outcome really isn't in question, though, and that's ok. A straight fight with 10 to 1 odds is normally gonna go bad for the side with 1. Everyone should be ok with physics being represented appropriately by having overwhelming force still be overwhelming. If there are comparable forces, or extenuating tactical circumstances then ok, but if nobody adds in some brilliant tactic and it's left to be a situation where a vastly greater force trades blows directly with a small one, the outcome is probably predictable. You can use that as the nature of the drama.

Even in that case, though, the mass combat checks can provide some character as to how it goes down. I don't really like to just leave it all to description without some guidance from dice or rules, so the checks work for me as a way to get an idea to narrate.

So I guess it comes down to some different scenarios.

• Overwhelming Force vs. Tiny Force = Probably know the outcome, visible from the Player perspective. Requires a major shift in pieces to change this (Leadership aborts action, High Leader killed).
• Larger Force vs. Small Force = not as clear but still somewhat evident. Contested. Can be shifted if a narratively significant Turning Point happens. (Leader killed, major terrain/tactical problem for one side).
• Medium Force vs. Small Force = Contested (Turning Points)
• Same vs. Same = Contested (Turning Points)

I actually used the Mass Combat rules in a game I ran, and it worked out well. The PC's had 4 or 5 squads of troops that they wanted to use to make a diversion for the PC's to break into a base. They had orders to minimize their casualties, but maximize noise. I talked with the PC's and we agreed that for the plan they had, their troops would have to hold for 3 Mass Combat rounds, then could fade away. Well, the PC's ran into a significant delay in the base, and had to radio for their troops to hold an extra round to allow them to escape with far more than they originally planned to. Their troops had been doing very well until then, but because of the impact they were making, found themselves heavily outnumbered, and ordered to keep fighting. Their final roll was great, because the rolled success with threat and despair. . .

I tortured them for a while, because they got radio reports that everything was proceeding according to plan until they hear "AT-AT! Go to ground!" then the radio cuts out. They assumed everyone was toast. A couple days later the stragglers return to base. Their radio was destroyed, lost about 1/2 the troops, plus some gear, but managed to ditch pursuit. I couldn't see completely wiping out the force if they rolled a success.