Artorius: Those who desire old age need not apply

[Elennsar]

This thread opened to provide a place to discuss my "sample" campaign away from the healing surges thread.

Something like this, perhaps:

http://www.greenmanreview.com/book/book ... peace.html

Describing the details would take a while, unfortunately.

The main thing is, I would like to have a campaign/chronicle/whatever with an actual chance of losing.

So maybe Arthur (by whatever name) does win the Twelve Battles, unite Britainia, and rule firmly and wisely for a generation or more.

Maybe he doesn't.

And if playing a knight or armiger of the King, there has to be a serious peril in being prepared to throw yourself in harm's way for him.

In such a campaign, most foes are individually inferior to you, but not necessarily hopelessly so, and you will probably have to deal with being outnumbered.

I would say each major battle is an encounter, with probably at least twice as many skirmishes and lesser fights (but still relevant to the success or failure of the war...thusly ones where the fact combat is deadly is relevant, instead of ones where it would take a fluke, which I do not want to model into game mechanics, to turn out serious. In these, major characters are as safe as at any point in the tale.)

So let's say forty fights of consequence.

[Draco_Argentum]

Define actual chance of losing with a number. Then define how deadly a skirmish needs to be to be "combat is deadly is relevant, instead of ones where it would take a fluke".

You'll need numbers here or mechanics can't be designed that will create those numbers.

[violence in the media]

Do you want fights to be over in 1-3 strikes, or do you want combat to take many, many turns as two opponents wear each other down to create an opening for a killing blow?

[Elennsar]

Actual chance of losing: Versus evenly matched opponents (refering to their overall ability to win, not individual): 50% chance of -losing- (whatever the chance of -dying- is, since you can beat the enemy and get killed, or lose and stay alive).

Versus superior opponents: Up to 90% chance of losing.

Versus inferior opponents: Assuming opponents capable of actual opposition, up to 90% chance of winning.

None of these are counting the advantages of disciplined cavalry or the like and greatly superior tactics by one side or another, because those can turn an encounter's odds around (or make a probable win into a certain win) by their own importance, regardless of what the chance would otherwise be.

A skirmish where there is something serious at stake is worth considering worth making a measurable risk for main characters. One of a hundred "three knights and five barbarians clash" encounters, with no impact on the overall progress of the two foes is not, a dozen barbarians attacking the King and his top half dozen "knights" may be a skirmish in terms of size, but it does have meaningful consequences and so is listed in the "twice as many or so skirmishes".

If you want a precise number, its going to depend a lot on the precise situation.

The example with the king and his "knights", for instance, is probably 60-40 (your favor) unless the ambush does catch you off guard or something similar.

In that case, well, being outnumbered roughly two to one can be very bad, or merely slower (since you have more people to kill), depending on how well you recover.

Violence: Generally, but not necessarily, "worn down". It is -possible- to kill an injuried opponent...but it takes several factors you can't count on being on your side (simply rolling high is insufficient, assuming an equal or near equal).

However, you can die before being totally spent. Barring something gone terribly wrong, you should be able to take at least two serious (meaning with penalties that impair you for a while) hits before being open.

[Surgo]

This doesn't seem particularly Arthurian to me.

The only time anyone with a name ever dies in an Arthurian romance is at the end of the book. Even against the most stubborn opponents who insist upon death, jousts between named figures usually end in surrender.

[Elennsar]

Which is why I am using the "Roman" style of Arthur's name and looking more at what the semi-historical dux who won at Badon did and less at what the wholy ahistorical king-emperor did.

An Arthurian story about Arthur and His Plate Armored Knights would wind up with all the elements of romance that bother me and none of the ones that interest me, regardless of the flow of combat.

[Draco_Argentum]

Actual chance of losing: Versus evenly matched opponents (refering to their overall ability to win, not individual): 50% chance of -losing- (whatever the chance of -dying- is, since you can beat the enemy and get killed, or lose and stay alive).

A death mechanic can't be written without knowing how much death there should be.

[MartinHarper]

Finally!

let's say forty fights of consequence.

lVersus inferior opponents: Assuming opponents capable of actual opposition, up to 90% chance of winning.

I will assume for the sake of argument that if the opponents are not "capable of actual opposition", then the fight is not a "fight of consequence". Therefore each fight has a MINIMUM chance of loss of 10%.

The chance of winning all forty fights of consequence is therefore, AT MOST, around 1.5%, and may well be significantly below that. Clearly this is a game/setting/campaign that will be exploring in detail the consequences of failure in a fight. I would suggest a high emphasis on things relating to surrender, unconsciousness, escape, and rescue.

[Elennsar]

A death mechanic can't be written without knowing how much death there should be.

And the answer is "Some". I would like to set up the mechanics so that you can live to the end of the campaign, but without making it so that getting killed is virtually impossible. See the Sword of the Samurai game for an example of a game that hands out death roughly as often as I would like to, and how. Not exactly, but close enough to point to as a reference.

Martin: Yes, it isn't a fight of consequence if they can't put up meaningful opposition.

But: None of these are counting the advantages of disciplined cavalry or the like and greatly superior tactics by one side or another, because those can turn an encounter's odds around (or make a probable win into a certain win) by their own importance, regardless of what the chance would otherwise be.

As stated, guts and a good plan > guts alone.

But yes, failure is something you will have to confront. No one wins every battle, but what is relevant is whether or not you win the war and what kind of defeat we're talking about. Having to retreat when you'd rather make the other guy retreat is a heck of a lot less bad in a skirmish than when fighting to keep him from threatening one of the "cities" (in quotes as Britainia by any other name...I'm not familiar enough with the history to try and insert Artorius into it, but I am using it as something that interests me, so anyway...does not have any of true consequence in the grand scheme of things. But then again, the grand scheme isn't relevant.)

And as repeated in bold, what might otherwise be a loss can be turned in a win by tactics and the like. Additionally, while you might have a very hard time winning in terms of "defeating the enemy on your terms", you might be able to make the cost for pressing it more than the barbarians want to pay (even though they could win if they did press it) - they're not commited to coming until you're all dead or they are, as a rule.

So what that should read as is, barring pulling something out that can break the odds, you have a 10%+ of failing to achieve your objectives.

Unlike in a computer game, however, holding for three days might be almost as good as holding for four, instead of "anything short of 96 hours might as well be 1".

[MartinHarper]

But: None of these are counting the advantages of disciplined cavalry or the like and greatly superior tactics by one side or another, because those can turn an encounter's odds around (or make a probable win into a certain win) by their own importance, regardless of what the chance would otherwise be.

Are you expecting the PCs to have greatly superior tactics more often than the NPCs?
Are you expecting the PCs to have disciplined cavalry or the like more often than the NPCs?

[Elennsar]

No and probably (Its not inevitable, but generally, that asset is going to the side of the PCs...assuming you're playing the defenders, not the barbarians, which is what the game is written from.)

What I am expecting is for PCs to be facing competent opponents who may - or may not - be skilled enough to beat them.

Some opponents will be very skilled, some will be fairly inept, and some will be middle of the road.

How skilled you are is something you're going to need to hone and sharpen, because no starting characters (not counting those considered to have significant experience already) are starting very high.

Neither is the average raiding/invading band leader, so take advantage of your assets, deny him his so far as you can, and you will triumph. Presumably.

Forty battles is the quote "historical" unquote war. Your war may go better (unlikely) or worse (possible).

The "historical" war was a win. Will yours be one? Good question.

[MartinHarper]

Good answers. Let's recap.

Actual chance of losing: Versus evenly matched opponents (refering to their overall ability to win, not individual): 50% chance of -losing- (whatever the chance of -dying- is, since you can beat the enemy and get killed, or lose and stay alive).

Versus superior opponents: Up to 90% chance of losing.

Versus inferior opponents: Assuming opponents capable of actual opposition, up to 90% chance of winning.

What are the odds of winning in each of those scenarios, given that the PCs will probably have disciplined cavalry or the like more often than the NPCs, and that both sides are equally likely to have greatly superior tactics?

[Elennsar]

Let's pretend for a moment you actually care what I say here.

The odds are that heavy cavalry > what you will face.

The odds are that you will face more relatively easy encounters than relatively hard.

The odds are that you will face competent opponents who can beat the crap out of you.

Until and unless you accept the idea of the text in bold, you are missing the entire point.

All things being otherwise balanced a certain way, heavy cavalry is a major advantage.

All things are NOT balanced the same way. Fifty horsemen vs. three hundred barbarians has several elements that can swing it from "victory" to "defeat", some of which the horsemen make more likely, others which they don't.

For instance, if you kill the leader of said barbarians, they're likely to be even more disorganized, which means that you can take advantage of that...but the odds of killing the leader may be fairly poor.

Let's assume that this is an actual campaign which you can actually lose, and not a "PCs are invincible except when the GM is a dick." campaign, so the actual odds have a lot to do with what happens in a specific encounter, as opposed to something drawn up to ensure PC victory or eventual death.

Heavy cavalry is not a +8 on all your rolls, its a couple big advantages that you can use in ways that have big damn advantages on your rolls...assuming your opponent doesn't foil them.

I am not interested in designing something based around "and the PCs will win most of the time" or "and the PCs will die most of the time", I am interested in designing something where people who win by good decisions, not on making things "on a 3+".

Sure, a 50-50 battle might be normal (or not), but there is a lot you can do to turn that 50-50 into Victory for Us that doesn't require getting tails (I'd say heads, but in this context, you need to get heads. Yes, try not to cry at my lame pun.)

[Absentminded_Wizard]

And can you give an estimate of the breakdown of superior/equal/inferior opponents?

[MartinHarper]

Let's pretend for a moment you actually care what I say here.

I do care what you say here. You've said that this is the thread where we will seriously discuss what the odds of success and failure and survival and death are, per encounter, and across the campaign, in your ideal campaign. I am also well aware that your ideal campaign involves a chance of failure. So, let us discuss those things.

I am not interested in designing something based around "and the PCs will win most of the time" or "and the PCs will die most of the time", I am interested in designing something where people who win by good decisions, not on making things "on a 3+".

That's a very good point. Therefore I will ask a slightly different question:

What are the odds of winning in each of those scenarios, given that the PCs will probably have disciplined cavalry or the like more often than the NPCs, and that both sides are equally likely to have greatly superior tactics, and given that the PCs are of average competence in their decision making?

[Elennsar]

Wizard: Depending on your definition of superior and inferior (this is still unformed as a system, so whether being a good tactician counts as more important than being good at one of the other things besides tactics is impossible to answer until those are sorted out, so bear in mind this is provisional)

These don't add up to 100%...some campaigns will push for the gold (and face harder opponents more but less fights if they can make this work), and that's not neccessarily invalid.

You will probably run into between 50-70% inferior opponents, though usually not significantly inferior mechanically.

You will probably run into 20-40% equals.

You will probably run into 10% superior opponents (but within the range you can beat).

You will probably not run into opponents much greater than you.

What are the odds of winning in each of those scenarios, given that the PCs will probably have disciplined cavalry or the like more often than the NPCs, and that both sides are equally likely to have greatly superior tactics, and given that the PCs are of average competence in their decision making?

Somewhere between 30% and 100%, depending on what scenario.

Some scenarios are harder than others. Some are easier.

My ideal campaign would be that you should be able to survive the campaign.

Stop looking for "40%" and start looking at "NPCs come up with plans too.", instead of just being DCs to beat.

[TavishArtair]

I would like to point out, that if you want to be highly realistic about this sort of thing, most fights in the real world are highly boring affairs which start off with a few arrows or bullets flung in either direction... and that's it. People don't risk themselves, so fights only rarely actually occur and devolve into prolonged melee.

And that's actually what happens when combat is quite likely fatal, too, which is what you're designing. Although I'll note that the lethality of weapons is highly overrated in the real world. Plenty of men have also stood up after being stabbed over a dozen times in the gut, or being run completely through. Of course, plenty of men have gone down in one blow, too, thus the caution of most warriors.

Anyways, back on point, you have to really encourage people to charge into battle or you will spend basically entire campaigns where there's maybe one actual melee, and the rest are ranged skirmishes.

[Elennsar]

Please explain the following if people generally just fling a few arrows at each other and then go home:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stirling_Bridge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maldon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manzikert

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rome_(537-538)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hattin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings

There are plenty of reasons having to do with anything from being dumb to wanting to achieve a triumph to just "manliness" (which may or may not count as being dumb) for people to fight far more seriously than "a few arrows...and that's it."

One of the reasons in this campaign is that bow technology is fairly underdeveloped, and that "heavy" melee is very effective.

Skirmishing by flinging a few arrows will not work, even assuming it is acceptable and so on (itself questionable).

[IGTN]

Please explain the following if people generally just fling a few arrows at each other and then go home: (snip)

Selection bias.

If, to pull some numbers out of my ass here, 90% of hostile encounters are a ranged skirmish followed by retreat, and 10% lead to melee/volley tactics/what-have-you, then out of 1,000 encounters between sizeable forces, you get a full hundred melees to put in the history books. You hear a lot about melees and not about such skirmishes, because battles where one side opens up with a few arrows, the other side returns fire, and the first side runs, aren't given space in the history books.

This happens whatever the proportions are, as long as there are enough melees to fill the space in the history books.

[Elennsar]

Selection bias intentional. This is -about- the kinds of people who get into those fights, which means that the fact that there are a range of not always good reasons for them -doesn't matter- - the people getting into them think it is worth it, whether they are being practical or proud or optimistic or whatever.

For better or worse, the basis for both the "barbarians" and the "civilized" is are the aspect/s of Western culture that chose to disdain ranged combat and focus on melee combat.

Being practical had only a limited amount to do with it, you were -supposed- to take the idea of charging in screaming the name of your God/s seriously because that's -what warriors did- according to what people were taught.

If the Saxons are trying to take over Britain, hit and run is only worthwhile if you hitting is enough to matter, which with the resources you have available...isn't really true.

[TavishArtair]

You hear a lot about melees and not about such skirmishes, because battles where one side opens up with a few arrows, the other side returns fire, and the first side runs, aren't given space in the history books.

It's also a bit more like the melees make for a good story, whereas you abstract the arrow-skirmishes into "they occasionally shot arrows at each other for a few hours before the opposing side was run off." Also look at sieges. They generally produce a few melees, but over hours, days, even months of fighting, they will gloss over most of it in the space of a sentence. Since nothing "much" happens, as no conclusive victory tends to occur, they can exclude it as not a point of interest and reduce it to brevity.

[Elennsar]

Quite. Thusly, the skirmishes that are just at the "few arrows" level are barely worth (if worth at all) playing out.

The serious ones are fun, exciting, and challenging.

[TavishArtair]

Quite. Thusly, the skirmishes that are just at the "few arrows" level are barely worth (if worth at all) playing out.

The serious ones are fun, exciting, and challenging.

Maybe you should actually make that a mechanic, so to speak. Anything below the level of consequence can be resolved with a few dice instead of playing it out round by round, and only melee combat really gets to be "interesting." That would, I think, do what you want, by giving the most tactical depth to the area you're most interested in, thus the players are most interested in it because it's the place they can exert the most tactical control.

And if you have to, the dice can tell you how many hours you dick around shooting arrows at each other to no great effect (although obviously arrows kill people, it'd probably be incidental at best in this setup).

[Elennsar]

Intending to. 40 "battles" including skirmishes are 40 or so engagements worth playing out in full.

Shooting a few arrows or staring for a few hours are worth describing, but only in that they happened.

Even rolling a few dice would be more to determine if something by mischance did happen (getting hit with an arrow, if you're -not- in mail, which is not always the case, can suck...but not badly enough to be a big deal in one of these things. If injuries go from 1: barely worth recording to 5: going to kill you, nothing beyond 2. Real injuries come from the real fights.)

[TavishArtair]

If you wanted bows to make sense (they are, after all, a thing that you can kill people with, so it'd be odd if you asserted it impossible) while still being ineffective for combat, I would suggest having the drop-off of effect be whenever the targets have cover, which would be consistent with how these things work. You can fire arrows at the battlements all day, you're not going to kill anyone except by luck, likewise with firing into the woods, etc., but people who get caught in the open while running straight across the field, without benefit of cover, towards the archers, are the most liable to get withered under a hail of arrows, if they can't make it into close range very quickly, which depends on the size of the field.

And, of course, the fact that you can carry portable cover around (shields) makes even this prospect a not-totally-demented idea, although I'd generally tend to systemically weight a shield a bit below having something that actually covers your entire body.

You'd want to make the benefit of cover automatic, not percentage, however, so as to emphasize that it's Just Not Going To Happen.