[CONAN] Free Companies Battle on the Small Scale

[Supplement Four]

Early on with my campaign, I wanted a quick system to determine a fight between NPCs that the PCs were watching. The scenario was the the PCs, young Cimmerians, were watching an older clansman go one-on-one with a captured warrior from another clan. It was a fight to the death, gladitorial style. If the captured warrior won, then he would be allowed to go free.

I could have just rolled up to PCs and fought that out normally, but I wanted something quicker--not as detailed. I wanted to be able to roll behind my GM's screen and quickly describe the events--and I wanted the randomness that the rolls provided. I didn't just want to "make it up". I wanted my players to feel the fight could go either way.

I played around with a few ideas, but nothing spoke to me. In the game, I finally just allowed two players to play the two combatants.

It didn't quite have the effect I was looking for. I wanted the PCs to be spectators.

If I ever developed such a system, I think I'd have a number of uses for it. For example, let's say the PCs wander into a tavern in Corinthia, and there, they see a ringed fist fight going on. They can bet on the action. In a game, I don't want to have to have fully detailed d20 characters, complete with skills and Feats, in order to play that out.

I just want to throw some dice behind the screen and describe what happens.

Well, looking at the Narrative Battle System in Free Companies, I think that the system could easily be used for these small, one-on-one encounters as well as it does in describing the battles with 10,000 troops on each side.

Let's take the two bare fisted fighters slugging it out in a ring with the patrons betting on them. I could give each fighter an MC, and then, each combat round, just roll an Opposed MC check, just like in the large battles.

I think it'd be a fine system to eyebrow conflicts that don't directly involve the PCs.

 

[LucaCherstich]

I feel every mass combat system should be used for anything from 20 vs 20 to 100.000 vs 100.000, otherwise they are useless.

I like the Free Companies Narrative mass combat system, even if it has its faults:
- simplistic
- no real sense of differences of weapons
- no real sense of differences of numbers
- too dependant on what you decide as a GM (for establishing MC numbers and which are the moments to roll and check them).
In other words, sometimes players feel like the GM is just deciding everything and the dice rolls are just for "showing them" something....
HOWEVER, its main advantages is QUICKNESS, a factor which helps narrating a story (and does not turn your game into a wargame).
So, to be short, YES, it's system I like.

Last year I tried the V.Darlage's mass combat system in "Empires of the Hyborian Age."
It is also a quick system and it is a system where numbers and kinds of weapon matters a lot.
I really appreciate the way V.Darlage seems to differentiate units in a relatively simple system.
HOWEVER, it's also a system which needs some fix...unless you want all your battles to end up as rapid, quick messy carnages with no survivors.
It is also a system where who strikes first always win...

 

[Supplement Four]

I like the Free Companies Narrative mass combat system, even if it has its faults:
- simplistic
- no real sense of differences of weapons
- no real sense of differences of numbers
- too dependant on what you decide as a GM (for establishing MC numbers and which are the moments to roll and check them).

Hmm... I have to disagree. It is a simple system, but with the rest of your points I can't agree. The system does require a strong GM, but I'm Old School. I believe in a strong GM.

With massive numbers of warriors, there typically shouldn't be a sense of difference in weapon types unless once side greatly overwhelms the other (for example, a unit using Aquilonian short swords vs. a unit of Gunderman Pikemen, or a unit of Kushite infantry vs. a unit of Black Kingdom savages using primitive weapons).

Combat is reduced to a simple higher-die throw. The MC is the modifier. And, it's up to the GM to adjust the MC to account for any factors.

I think it's a pretty cool system.

In other words, sometimes players feel like the GM is just deciding everything and the dice rolls are just for "showing them" something....

It's a narrative system. It's not designed to be a true wargame. I would hide the die throws and not even let the players know their own MCs.

It's a system to guide the GM's description of what the players' see.

It's like rolling dice to find out if it rains. There's a modifier to sway the dice one way or the other (The MC). You roll it, then describe the results as you play out the encounter.

Last year I tried the V.Darlage's mass combat system in "Empires of the Hyborian Age."

I'll have to take a look at it.

 

[LucaCherstich]

With massive numbers of warriors, there typically shouldn't be a sense of difference in weapon types unless once side greatly overwhelms the other (for example, a unit using Aquilonian short swords vs. a unit of Gunderman Pikemen, or a unit of Kushite infantry vs. a unit of Black Kingdom savages using primitive weapons).

Well, it's a matter of rule granularity and perception.

Differences in Weapon types ALWAYS can matter, if combined with the right armour and tacticts in the right situations.

If your "Aquilonian shortswords" means a thick unit of heavy infantry like Roman Legionari with gladii, pila and large shields, your Gundermen pikemen will be first damaged and confused by thrown pila and then have a bad quarter of hour in a tight space with not so much space to maneuver their pikes... like what exactly happened to Macedonian Phalanxes vs Roman legions.

But if "Shortswords" you mean poor, half trained levy soldiers with leather jerkins and poor quality shortswords...the Gundermen will have some fun.

All these things matter in many systems.
In the Free Companies system they are just arbitrary + or - added or subtracted by the GM (which means slightly more than arbitrarily saying "you loose" "you win").

In any case, I've not said the Free Companeis system is bad.
It's just that you need adult players and adult GM.
But you are an old-school GM, so that's the system for you!
I find it a fun system!

 

[Supplement Four]

Well, it's a matter of rule granularity and perception.

Differences in Weapon types ALWAYS can matter, if combined with the right armour and tacticts in the right situations.

The narrative system in Free Companies can accommodate this, though.

For example...

If your "Aquilonian shortswords" means a thick unit of heavy infantry like Roman Legionari with gladii, pila and large shields, your Gundermen pikemen will be first damaged and confused by thrown pila and then have a bad quarter of hour in a tight space with not so much space to maneuver their pikes... like what exactly happened to Macedonian Phalanxes vs Roman legions.

Thus you give the Aquilonians a higher MC because of their equipment.

But if "Shortswords" you mean poor, half trained levy soldiers with leather jerkins and poor quality shortswords...the Gundermen will have some fun.

And, in this case, the Gundermen have a higher MC.

In either case, the disadvantaged side still has a good chance to win.

In the Free Companies system they are just arbitrary + or - added or subtracted by the GM (which means slightly more than arbitrarily saying "you loose" "you win").

The only difference is that it's the GM's opinion, rather than the writer of the wargame rules, that decides on the modifiers.

In other words, the Free Companies system could have a whole chapter on how weapons modify the battle by placing modifiers on MC. Instead, what the system does is say, "Hey, GM! You make that call!"

I don't see a lot of difference in the two.

In any case, I've not said the Free Companeis system is bad.

I know. You said it was simple, and therefore, you like it.