Help wargamer from long back

[Valthalion]

Hi guys

Here is my problem.  The way I see TROS running is more abstract than a minatures based game.  Terrain rolls are  used to decide who fights who.

When there are multiple combats going on simultaneously.  How do you run this.  How do what role does the relative positioning of the players play.

For example I just ran a combat between party and 30 goblins.  The party managed to make it to a bridge accross the stream.  Overconfident hero with case of rapiers stood like Horatio.  (Actually it was a fallen tree)Others pulled out bows and magic etc on the other side.  How do you time  the combats and coordinate the battle.

Actually several goblins fell into the water (failed terrain rolls) Horatio killed several more and the rest ran away.

I found it difficult to tell when A & B should be firing and C 's other actions where happening.  

Valthalion

[James Buchanan]

What I like to do I call "cut to.." action.

That is, everyone is given their share of camera time by affording them time to do whatever they want unti they have achieved something.

This seems well suited to what you were doing.. because the hero was on the bridge, only one antagonist could approach at a time. Ergo, play out one fight with him killing an antagonist. Then.. say "cut to.." the next player. And let them do whatever action they had planned, so long as it only takes a few seconds.. firing an arrow.. perhaps two or three if they're really quick. Casting a spell. All of these things take roughly the same amount of time. Give each player a few minutes of unabashed camera time and then cut to the next one. They'll each be happy and you don't need to worry about annoying things like initiative. Just go to whomever seems appropriate.. if the "hero" on the bridge is about to be overwhelmed, leave it hanging then look to the rest of the group. If you've gotten them into the mood, then they should be jumping out of their skins wanting to come up with a last minute save for their compadre.

Don't think of it as a wargame. It isn't. Think of it as an action film. Think you're making Conan or Gladiator. Think what would be cool to see at that point. An arrow flying past the ear of the swordsman to take the antagonist in the throat as it has raised it's spear to finish him off. The rapidly cooling corpse falling from the bridge to expose the rest of the "horde" clasping at their throats, suddenly unable to breathe. Then cut to the the sorcerer reeling back from the drain of the magical essence on his life force.

Think of it as imagery or a movie. Don't fuss so much about the tactics or numbers of it, because you'll lose something; something cool.

Also.. 30? Jebus. That's like.. alot.

I try to focus on fleshing out the individual antagonists rather than dropping number on my players. Even if they are generic. When my players see a black armoured man, with a deep dark cowl bearing a blackened axe, they know it's serious. But, unfortunately, his 3 companions will not bear waiting. So, while they need to deal with the executioner, they have to worry about the "mooks" aswell, each one of them a real threat, because that's the system. It's no meat grinder, it's life and death, realistic threats. So, I try and make each encounter that they have meaningful, and important to the players. Going for large numbers like that tends to detract from how meaningful and threatening that is. I only ever use large numbers when a) I want them to run run run or b) the players have "backup"; even then I focus in on the players. The "backup" simply removes numbers from how many the players have to fight, and allow the players to focus on the "villains" or opposing "heros".

Big fights for me are like in the movie Troy, when the Trojans are attacking the greek camp and "Achillies" and Hector gravitate towards each other. Just how Hector and Ajax did when the greeks attacked Troy. The heros and villians are a cut above everyone else, so they are the only ones who can deal with each other, but they'd be pulled down if they didn't have their men. So, the troops are basically the a shield to protect their captains from being killed by other troops, so that they can fight and defeat the other captain.

This may be a little "heroic" for you, but it's a quick and easy way to do mass combat. A) Determine how many of each force must die (depending on relative skill and numbers of each force, Seneschal judgement) for their captains to meet. B) Captains duel, one dies/retreats. This breaks the morale of his men, whom flee. Leaving the victorious captain's men as bloody as A) determined ;).

You can even use "cut to.." action in this scenario. Each player has a role in the battle/unit that he commands. Each fights a unit of men/casts spells from afar/rains feathered death upon units that a companion is about to engage. Don't measure it too much, just give them options. Ask the archer who he is directing his men to fire at, then ask which of the "fighters" if they want to engage. Use your judgement a lot, it's what you're there for.

Anyway, lots of rambling. Think about some of the ideas. Although, one question for you before you go. You say you've played a bunch of wargaming, and I can dig, what other gaming experience have you had?

-James

[Valthalion]

Thanks for the advice.

Also.. 30? Jebus. That's like.. alot

Well they weren't really meant to fight them.  Quite a bit of interaction was lost in my above post.  Albeit to say the leader and the Sorceror exchanges pleasantries leading to the leaders rapid demise at the hands of her wolf familiar.  The goblins were spread out and shaken.  The party members escaped to the bridge and so it went on.  I am a big believer that NPCs have a healthy disregard for combat in TRoS as well as PCs. Although Horatio on the bridge is majorly overconfident.

You say you've played a bunch of wargaming, and I can dig, what other gaming experience have you had?

I started with D&D in 1981 moved to AD&D three weeks later.  When Rolemaster was released in 84/85 or so as a supplement to AD&D i went with that.  Then Harn/Harnmaster from the beginning.  Unbelievebly it is still going. Done some shadowrun,cyberpunk, twilight 2000 etc.   Wargaming I have been a Phoenix Command fan for 15 years.  (I am a simulationist for sure)  Plus I've played a lot of other stuff.  

Must admit though DBM (Ancients) was an eye opener for me.  The mechanics are simple but when I played it FELT real. Same goes for TROS, I hated the dice pool mechanic in Shadowrun but here it is working well to give the feel. How much energy do I put into this attack. Will I overextend. etc

So here I am.

[James Buchanan]

Well they weren't really meant to fight them. Quite a bit of interaction was lost in my above post. Albeit to say the leader and the Sorceror exchanges pleasantries leading to the leaders rapid demise at the hands of her wolf familiar. The goblins were spread out and shaken. The party members escaped to the bridge and so it went on. I am a big believer that NPCs have a healthy disregard for combat in TRoS as well as PCs. Although Horatio on the bridge is majorly overconfident.

Ah, that explains it *nods* I guess they made the best of a bad situation. It also depends on what sort of attitude the players have.

I try to encourage a healthy respect for the enemies in my players, even if it's just situational flair. The sound of arrows whistling through the trees around them, thunking into logs, just after they jump over them. I really hope my PCs never decide 30 vs 4 is okay odds. Even with situation in their favour.

I started with D&D in 1981 moved to AD&D three weeks later. When Rolemaster was released in 84/85 or so as a supplement to AD&D i went with that. Then Harn/Harnmaster from the beginning. Unbelievebly it is still going. Done some shadowrun,cyberpunk, twilight 2000 etc. Wargaming I have been a Phoenix Command fan for 15 years. (I am a simulationist for sure)

Yah, that comes through, and it's not bad. I am inherently simulationist. I want the game to reflect the story that I represent, I want the mechanics to support my stories, so that the players don't have to go into great disbelief. But I've played under some excellent dramatist STs and they've influenced me greatly, they've helped me get a better focus on the use of imagery in my stories, to make the players feel like they are the center of the action. I really like the balance that TROS provides for a sim/drama mix, because I tend to feel it's probably the best combination.

Anyway, hope this helps, good luck! :)

-James

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

Here is my problem.  The way I see TROS running is more abstract than a minatures based game.  Terrain rolls are  used to decide who fights who.

When there are multiple combats going on simultaneously.  How do you run this.  How do what role does the relative positioning of the players play.

As James states -- and as the rules infer -- there is less simulation here than you might expect. Initially it feels like a simulation as you read the rules. The SAs give the first hint that TRoS is at least a hybrid Narrativist game. The tips on running combat suggest allowing each combat pair to run a few rounds before moving on to the next pair. This indicates that timing within the tactical environment is looser than a Simulationist design would probably allow.

As such, the eternal questions of "What can my character see?" and "Can I despatch my opponent in time to assist my companion before she is overwhelmed?" are not so much handled through interpretation of the rules as much as the referee determining which option produces a better game for all players.

Classifying myself as a moribund Simulationist before encountering TRoS I find it all rather interesting -- and tremendously enjoyable.

Cheers,