Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Aria May 24 2011, 06:30 PM

First of all, I haven't searched the forum to see if there are similar ideas already floating around...if anyone knows of such a thread that would be great!

I'm currently running a semi military game and the PCs are accompanied by additional NPC troops, drones etc. So far they have made some command type rolls (loosely based on the stuff in WAR!) but then I have GM ruled what is going on for the sake of plot...

...the risks with this are that the PCs feel their combat actions become irrelevant as the troops will do the fighting (and dying) for them
...they might feel that I am rail-roading them by deciding events without any dice rolling

I have considered trying to cobble an abstract mass combat system based on the PCs rolling for their troops but also their actions influencing outcomes (sort of similar to an ancient D&D <avert head from all the spitting> system I saw once way back when)

So how would this work?

• Combat turn based on 1-5mins (rather than every round - I want to avoid excessive book keeping, keep it fluid and simple and allow PCs to shine with individual actions during that time frame)
• Troops get a combat stat that reflects effectiveness - skill+teamwork+equipment / augmentations+magic+tacnets?!?
• Modifiers for good / bad leadership and tactics rolls by PC 'officers'
• Modifiers for heroic <ahem> PC actions
• Anything else?!?

A single roll for them and one for the foe, compare hits and set an outcome based on this? I guess this would have to be pre quantified to avoid slipping into the problems above. Perhaps a loss of troops from each side (more from losers) and some sort of morale effect?

Thoughts / rants very welcome!

Posted by: suoq May 24 2011, 07:37 PM

Do you put your Navy Seals on patol duty in Afghanistan or have them raiding Bin Laden's compound?

Whatever their skills are, there's got to be better assignments than the front lines. I'm not sure what your background is. If it's historical, think OSS. If it's entertainment, think A-Team. Either way, get them on the highest risk, highest reward tasks. They should be assassinating Hitler, not chasing tanks in Africa.

Posted by: Warlordtheft May 24 2011, 07:46 PM

My though is that in this situation, guage the impact of the PC's action-like killing the enemy commander resulting in the PC's forces gaining the upper hand until the enemy sorts out it's command structure. Blowing up thier ammo dump results in tthe enemy running out of bullets. ETC. ETC. Also-keep the non-mission applicable parts of the battlefield as a predetermined route or as a decision tree format (IF PC's achieve X then y happens)-saves the dice rolling.

BTW-waay back in 1st ed when I was in HS (when I had the time) I tried to do a combat with about 50 guys on each side. It took me a few hours for just one 3 second turn.

Posted by: BlackHat May 24 2011, 08:10 PM

The suggestions Aria threw out above reminds me a bit of the "chase combat" rules in SR4. Something similar might be adapted for mass combat

Highlights:

• Each "chase" turn is 20 combat turns (although mass combat might be longer)
• Each "chase" turn begins with an opposed roll to see which "side" gains the upper hand
• This roll is modified by handling/speed/number of vehicles on a side (could be modified by leadership or professional rating plus number of units)
• The whole "chase" moves along a scale from interception to escape (could be from victory for one side to victory for the other - or still used for engagement range)
• This results in a tug of war with dice rolls, unless one team outclasses the other by enough to move the slider to one end and get what they want
• Stunts can be performed by any "driver", most of which cause the opposition to make a resisted roll or else face the possibility of crashing (crashing could be replaced with general defeat in combat)
• "Chase" combat keeps going until each driver has broken off, crashed, or become otherwise destroyed (mass combat continues until all enemy units have retreated, surrendered, or been defeated)

Much like chase combat, however, this doesn't solve the problem of other PC actions becoming largely irrelevant in the larger mass combat scenario.

My experience with chase combat in SR has been that if the PCs can just shoot hack or magic their way to victory/escape, they will do so before the first chase combat round resolves. If they can't and need to count on their pilot/rigger to get them out of there, then most of them are doing nothing useful during the 20 combat turns that pass between each chase turn.

Posted by: Summerstorm May 24 2011, 10:21 PM

Well, i really loved the mass combat rules of 7th Sea. It was pretty much "Table" based and in the execution was heavily on storyteller side. I recommend you read those (if possible) and try to work a bit more Shadowrun into them.

It went pretty much like this: Every named character (player characters) stated how heavily they wished to engange (going berserk on the front, stay back and wait for opportunity etc. One man was the commander (who had to have the skill), but some players could add boni depending on their tactical skills.

Now everybody rolled his chances for something special on the table. You got more chances for riskier engagement. You also got automatical damage according to that (You could lessen that with higher armor, but no dodge/etc). If you got a chance for heroic actions you quickly rolled on a second table what it was (interupting a lieutennent, clear shot at their commander, holding a flank alone etc. Here your skills became important and you just got this ONE roll. The outcome would have different effects, most likely higher Tactical scor for your commander.

Now both commanders made their roll for commands/tactic with all modifiers (Actions of players, group size, leftover difficulties of previous rounds etc.) and could allocate helping points from a pool, and depending who rolled higher the tide of the battle went their way. You needed to win three those rolls in a row to subdue the opposition.

Good things: Everybody can help out. You have to weigh your own risks and damages, "leader" types finaly have cool applications for their skills. You can work with your player to tell the story of this fight. Every round is as long as it needed to be.

For shadowrun of course you would need a bit more "all-or-nothing" cover based fighting and possibilities for equipments and magic.

Posted by: Critias May 24 2011, 10:38 PM

A buddy of mine used to just "fudge it" in large combats, using basically the Warhammer 40k unit rules, albeit after simplifying them based on the units involved in an RPG. You roll one die for each attacking NPC, roll one die for each defending NPC, and they're either knocked out of the fight or they aren't; ugly and basic, but quick and cinematic. NPC's would either hit on a 2+, 3+, or 4+, then wound on a 2+, 3+, 4+ (eyeballing it based on what they were shooting and at what range). The shot guys would then survive thanks to armor (or being a Troll, or whatever) on a 2+, 3+, or 4+...and that was that.

Unit of ten guys? He'd sling ten dice, keep those that hit, sling 'em again to see who died, keep those that hit, sling 'em again to see whose armor/cover/Trollish hide saved 'em...and that was that. PCs and whoever they were fighting still rolled like normal, but the rest of it gets handled with this dirt simple abstraction. We could get a feel for the general flow of how a large battle was going, he didn't have to roll a million dice a million times, and the PCs stayed in the spotlight as buddies or baddies dropped like flies all around.

Posted by: Fatum May 24 2011, 10:39 PM

Right, it's not like there have been whole books on runners acting as mercs on the frontlines of the many conflict zones of the Sixth World, and how to GM that kind of campaigns... No place for runners there!

Posted by: Udoshi May 24 2011, 11:05 PM

Whatever you do, hit up random.org and print off a few sheets of randomly generated dice rolls. (integer gen, values 1-6). Makes stuff go so much faster, just cross off the amount of dice you need to roll for an NPC.

Posted by: Cheops May 24 2011, 11:51 PM

Fast and dirty: Extended Skill Test and allow any reasonable skill use.

Posted by: TheOOB May 25 2011, 12:06 AM

Honestly, this is the wrong game system. Metaphorically you're trying stick a round peg in a square hole. Shadowrun's combat system is very focused on the individual, and if you are trying to do a campaign with mass combat, your better off finding a new game system.

Posted by: Method May 25 2011, 12:46 AM

Just a few quick thoughts:

-- Use the team work rules to generate a DP for attack tests by one unit against another. Give the unit a "condition monitor" with boxes = to men in the unit. Resolve attacks using the regular rules. Don't know how well this would work- just an idea off the top of my head.

-- Check out the Strategic Combat rules in War! and see if they support what you're trying to do.

-- A lot of what goes on in a full scale battle can be described as part of the "background environment" the PC are operating in. Use the ebb and flow of the battle as a plot device and only bust out the stats and numbers for elements of the battle the PCs interact with directly. If the PCs are doing well, have the battle swing in their favor. If you want more tension, have the battle swing against them.

Posted by: Socinus May 25 2011, 12:49 AM

Check the mass battle system rules for the lastest L5R incarnation. They're very good and very brief, I dont see why you couldnt modify those rules to fit Shadowrun.

Posted by: Bodak May 25 2011, 12:49 AM

Well there are always the FASA http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3476/shadowrun-dmz-downtown-militarized-zone (DMZ) fast combat rules if you want a decent large-scale combat without allocating the lion's share of the gaming session time to it.

Posted by: Aria May 25 2011, 12:58 PM

As a complete departure from the mass combat thing but still maintaining a military flavour how about this for an idea:

Each PC gets a small amount of extra BPs to spend on Events. (I may also let them spend some of their own BPs so that face/leadership roles are equally important as the combat types...?!?) These Events would be effectively one-shots but refresh like edge (and at my discretion). This should allow the PCs to shine in their own right but give them the satisfaction of playing with the Big Guns that otherwise would be inaccessible due to availability / resource costs...

I could just give them to the group (as I’ve done in my current Emerging Conflict thread) but I’d like the PCs to have more involvement in the selection and therefore a stake in the success or failure of these elements.

What might be a good BP cost for the following (and should I rule any out or add more in?!?) given that they will only last a very limited duration on a mission?:

Insertion/Evac (Unit leader only - covers the whole team - So that the rigger doesn’t need to spend precious points on a vehicle. It wouldn’t stick around as fire support unless the rigger chooses to buy transport out of normal BPs)

• Military APC
• Submarine / Stealth Boat
• Helicopter / VTOL
• LAV
• HALO drop / Stealth Glider (I’ve yet to see anyone spend points on parachuting so I would assume a basic skill to go along with this choice)

Distraction

• Unguided Mortar Strike (thermal smoke or similar?)
• Drone Distraction (to set off alarms or draw fire)
• Friendly Infantry Unit (to provide some brief covering fire)

Intervention

• Armour Attack (Having a tank swing by at just the right moment)
• Helicopter Gunship Strike
• Guided Mortar Strike (Get some use out of those laser designators)
• Artillery Strike
• Air Strike (Love the smell of napalm in the morning!)
• Thor shot (Well we have stats for them now after all!)

Reinforcements (Not sure about this category...)

• Friendly Infantry Unit
• Drone Unit

Thanks for your input!

Posted by: BlackHat May 25 2011, 02:09 PM

I think it will be a very difficult balancing act to get the BP costs right, particularly for something that refreshes "at GM discretion" and if there isn't a clear mechanical rule for each of these options. It'll be tough for the players to know if the support they are requesting will save their lives, or accomplish nothing except burning up some BP. Edge gives some guidelines as to how often players can expect to get it back, and you'll want to make sure you have a similar list for this. You also don't want to charge too few BP, or the PCs will be Thor-shotting everything that puts up much of a fight, but you don't want to charge too many BP or they'll just decide it is a bad investment and ignore the option. If I catch your intention, you hope to get it just right so that the PCs can basically buy up (or have available to them, as a team) a few "get out of jail free" cards, so when they're pinned down by the enemy, or in some other dire situation, they can call in cover fire, or an air strike, or some other help or distraction to help them regain the upper hand.

If that is the case, you could always just hand them a number of "hands-of-god" to be used for that purpose. If the implication is "these will save your asses when you get in over your head, but you need to describe their use in terms of calling in support from HQ" then you don't have to worry about how many BP to charge (just how many extra lives you want to give your PCs) and you don't have to worry about the specific mechanics (damage from the Thor shot, or what kind of drones and what modifications they have, what the stats are for the LAV the team is using for extraction, or what the dice pools of the support team looks like, etc).

If you're interested in those details, though, you probably have your work cut out for you - because they won't all be equal, and the PCs will need to be able to figure out whether or not each option is "worth it", both in terms of the BP it will cost them and in terms of how likely it is to make a difference in their current situation if they use it up.

Posted by: Ascalaphus May 25 2011, 02:43 PM

Very important: don't roll for nameless NPCs vs. nameless NPCs. There's no better way to bore everyone than doing that.

Focus on what NPCs are doing to influence (attack, report to, order around) the PCs, and how the PCs influence the battle & NPCs. Also, determine what happens to important (named) NPCs and what they do to influence the battle. Then just make up how all this shapes the general battle. Keep the nameless hordes abstract.

Posted by: hermit May 25 2011, 02:58 PM

Use a system along the lines of the Dark Hwresy/Rogue Trader/Deathwatch games.

Each unit gets stats like it was a person - made from the average stats of each individual soldier. The units then fight it out like characters would. Each net hit sustained incapacitates a soldier (roll D6, on a hit they die, otherwise they're wounded but alive). Units take damage penalties as normal, and have damage boxes (physical only) by the number of soldiers.

Posted by: Seth May 25 2011, 07:43 PM

I tend to use the following system for fantasy battles. I have used it a couple of times in shadowrun.

The PCs have a choice about how many risks they are taking: very low, low, medium, high, heroic. The flow of battle makes it almost impossible for them to stay together as a group. The best they can do is "buddy up", so they are all effectively in their own groups of 1 or 2 people

Each "battle turn" (duration depends on the situation 10,000 people means 1 hour per turn, 100 people means 10 mins per turn) we do the following:

• The leaders make tactics rolls, modified by the strength of the forces
• We then play through a battle turn with the PCS:The spotlight of battle shines on each group for a few combat rounds. They roll a die to see how well they are doing. This is influenced by the risks they are taking, how well the leaders went, and their skill in battle. This allows me to bring in very short scenarios. For example "you have the opportunity to attack a main leader", "you are surrounded by 3 mooks and a lieutenant", "a group of peasants try and pull you off your horse", "you draw the attention of a sniper". We then play through the mini-encounter, usually quite quickly, and move onto the next group. I put some effort into making these mini-scenarios before the battle, so they are usually customized for the specific battle.
• Based on how heroic they are, the tactics skill rolls of the leaders, and the strength of the forces, we work out roughly what happens in the battle. This is usually a free form judgement, but in my experience its usually pretty obvious.

At the end of the battle, they all get to make "how noticed were we", which is based on their social status, how heroic the PCs were, how successful they were in their individual encounters, and this affects how the leader of the battle (usually not a PC) allocates rewards: medals / honours / land / gold / loot.... This is very often followed by a party that ends in a drinking game (drinking games are also fun in RPG).

The main value of these rules is that they are very simple, and lots of fun: the players all look forward to battles. They also work well in a game like shadowrun, or the game that gives you cancer, in which the game doesn't scale to handle large groups.

Posted by: Method May 25 2011, 11:13 PM

This is similar to what I was conceptualizing up above. I think the SR rules would support this without much finagling. Using the team work rules would allow an advantage to units that have more men (i.e.- more rifles, more grenades, more etc). If there unit needs to make a more specialized roll of some kind the mage/hacker/medic/technician just splits out of the unit for that test (and the units pools and condition monitor drop appropriately.

I like the 1d6 roll to determine wounded vs dead, though (if for no other reason than saying "You have two wounded men to extract, how are you going to do that?" or to give a medic PC something to do).