Dueling, Skirmishes, and battles, it can take to long!

[Raymond Caleatry]

I am currently adapting TROS for a more heroic setting, which may contain more combat than I have seen in TROS during my usual sessions.  I find that for small groups or duels, the combat system is very good, as it allows the player a lot of freedom.  However, when there are larger battles, i.e. 10 - 20 characters involved, I can see the role-play session degenerating into one long combat session.  

Has anyone thought about using a cut down version of the combat system for skirmishes, or do any GM's out there have any tips for this sort of scenario.

[MonkeyWrench]

You could either just describe the skirmish to the players and ask them to describe what they are doing during it. Or if you want a more hands on approach just have them fight out a few individual combats while the battle rages around them. Think about the battle of Helm's Deep in Two Towers (or any movie with a battle scene in it) we only ever see Aragorn or Legolas or Gimli fight a handful of opponents and even then it's over in a matter of seconds, but the entire time a HUGE battle rages around them.

"Out of the clashing melee a battered warrior charges at you. Declare stance and throw initiative...."

[Mike Holmes]

I'd do what MW said, but have the flow of the battle be represented by the character's success. That is, as the PCs do well in their individual fights, their side does well. As the PCs do poorly, so does the group. This is very dramatic, and makes the players feel, even more, thier responsibility as a member of the unit.

Also allow PC rolls for leadership and tactics and such have an effect on the outcome.

Just don't play out each fight. If it's not the PCs fighting, then it's just backdrop. That said, there will likely be a mass combat system included in The Flower of Battle, from what I hear, so that might handle it as well. Further there have been a couple of mass combat systems mentioned here.

In any case, it's easy enough to make your own mass combat system. Just assume that each side is one guy with the same armor, weapons and stats for the typical guy in the unit. Don't allow maneuvers (or, if you're really ambitious, make up some of your own to represent battlefield maneuvers). Just roll dice back and forth. Wound levels inflicted represent loss of men (with a multiplier if the battle is large). That way you can have the battle rage on about the PCs with it taking all the effort of running two very simple NPCs to adjudicate.

Mike

[Valamir]

If you're looking for a way to randomize the battles but don't really want to play them all out, I'd suggest the following for the non PC engagements.

Roll Pool against Pool using man As ATN vs man Bs DTN and then repeat in the other direction.  After both pools have been rolled in this way, determine any wounds.

If the ATN pool wins each extra success is a wound level on the opponent.  If both sides won with their ATN pool than both sides wind up wounded.  If niether, than niether.  The GM should apply the wound level to any location desired or randomly choose one.

This single roll for each combatant is the entirety of the engagement between those two fighters and represents the entire series of attacks and parries in the meantime.  Do not roll again for that pair until the PCs have finished one of their engagements.  

Then when the PCs select a new opponent and a new fight, continue the engagement with the NPCs with another single full pool roll apiece (taking in account any wounds from the previous engagement) if both parties are still fighting, or find a new opponent for the victor.

Quick, dirty, still randomized, but doesn't waste time on extras.


Alternative:  It might be fun to let the Players take on the role of opposing NPCs once in a while just to have the fun and experience of fighting each other without risk to their own PCs.

[spunky]

Alternative:  It might be fun to let the Players take on the role of opposing NPCs once in a while just to have the fun and experience of fighting each other without risk to their own PCs.

It's a little off-topic, but I do this when an adventuring party splits up -- let the players whose characters are absent control the NPC adversaries in a fight.  Makes for some good combats...

[Brian Leybourne]

I do this when an adventuring party splits up -- let the players whose characters are absent control the NPC adversaries in a fight.  Makes for some good combats...

The drawback with this is that it ups the deadliness scale of the game somewhat. When you surrender control of an NPC, you lose the ability to fudge rolls if it becomes necessary.

Some would say fudging is heresy anyway, of course :-)

Brian.

[Raymond Caleatry]

Thanks for the input guys. I like the idea of the players not in the current scene taking the roles of NPC's. This could be fun.

However my original question was how to stop combat from taking control in game. Like for instance there is a party of players (numbering 5 ) and they are attacked by 12 mooks.

I haven't done much combat with this system, but i am worried that it will turn into a Shadowrun session, with the combat taking over an hour to do. I am hoping that the combat system is so deadly that it should be over pretty quickly.

[Valamir]

Keep in mind the following rules of thumb.

If one side has 2 more CP dice they have a noticeable advantage.
If one side has 4 more CP dice they have a solid advantage.
If one side has 6 more CP dice they have a very strong advantage
If one side has 8+ more CP dice they have an overwhelming advantage.

If you point your mooks according to this rule of thumb and encourage the party to make use of Terrain Rolls to fight only 1 at a time, each mook will go down pretty quickly.

However 12 on 5 is pretty significant numbers.  Even if your mooks have only 6 dice while the PCs have 12, that still puts the mooks up 12 dice total so this isn't going to be a cake walk.

Best bet tactically is to use Terrain rolls to cut the number of mooks you have to fight each round.  Then depending on how well those work, have 3-4 of the PCs take on 2 opponents each and go full defensive.  Then have the remaining PC (which may well switch each round who this is) be the killer and responsible for taking opponents down.

But if you play the mooks with any brains, and if they are only 2-4 CP less than the party...not a good idea, unless you're really trying to kill players.  The party better have a good several SAs firing hard or they're going to get trashed.  As it should be really being outnumbered more than 2:1

[Mike Holmes]

But, even if you do play this out, it'll be over relatively quickly. Your thought about the lethality making for quick combat is right. More importantly, however is the content of the combat. That is, this still might take a little while to do with that many characters. But it'll be worth it. No matter how long TROS combat takes, it never becomes a drag. Every choice and every roll is an interesting event.

Oh, one more idea. Some people have a problem with this method because it doesn't follow rigid chronology, but then neither do TROS rounds (they're of variable length). Basically the idea is to run with only one PC at a time. Note I cribbed this from Run Out the Guns a Rolemaster Pirate game where you have skirmishes all the time.

What you do is to concentrate on one player's combat at a time. So, in this case, the player faces off against 2 thugs each (or three if they're unlucky). You run through each character's combat until they're down or some significant break occurs like the PC evading, or one of the mooks going down. When that happens you switch to another player and run his combat until an appropriate break.

This is effective because the player gets really focused on what's happening. He doesn't set down his character sheet when it's not his turn, for example. His attention stays riveted. And the GM only has to pay attention to a couple of characters instead of the whole lot as well so he can remember things like damage better. Moreover, it actually sucks in the other players who become audience members. So they don't continually go back and forth between being active and passive participants as much which inevitably leads to distraction. So it's more fun for them as well.

And if you combine this with the idea of players playing NPCs it works really well. So, with five, run two PCs at once, against four opponents played by the GM and the other three players. That means that the GM never becomes a bottleneck for rolls, etc. Anyhhow, play a few rounds like this, and then go to the next two PCs, the rotate to PC 5 and PC1. Whatever is dramatic. The GM becomes more like a director (in fact you can refrain from playing a character and do nothing but cut backand forth indicating to the players who they're playing when).

Anyhow, lot's of fun possibilities.

Mike

[Raymond Caleatry]

Thanks Valamir, thats really handy to know when creating my mobs of slobbering daemons.  I always find game balence during combat difficult.  You want to make the players think that is was a tough fight, but you don't want to slaughter them.  Its a very fine line to walk.

Mike- Thank you for putting me at ease.  The last thing i wanted is for my game to turn into a long round of combat.  

I think with the advice i have got from this thread i will now move onto the next step...  Balancing the magic system.....