forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Hi everyone,

I've recently studied the great stuff that James R. Brown has published on his blog. Many thanks for your contributions by the way, very helpful!

I was especially intrigued by the Mythic Battles fan supplement that I want to give a try this weekend. I am talking about the Narrative Time Mode only here.

I have prepared a little battle mat for my Roll20 game (German, sorry... but you can have the GIMP source if you like).
I am gonna use this to keep track of all the parameters etc.

And now I once more went through the potential course of an epic battle and suddenly realized that there are a couple of things that I might have overlooked.

I start with shadow forces having a slight advantage in relative strenght of numbers. So we set shadow threat and engagement mood, talk about tactics, placement and heroes can influence some of it. Fine. We start.
Then we roll an Eye of Sauron on the assault wave table and the whole thing is already over, right? The shadow has shifted to "the Shadow has Prevailed" on the first roll. We still run the whole round and yes, of course, the heroes can go for a Last Stand at the end but then we are up for rolling dice all evening against a huge bunch of adversaries - that's what we wanted to avoid in the first place, didn't we?

And during the course of battle - what can the heroes do to influence the real thing, I mean the next assault wave result? They can't, right? In the end it is completely random where the tides of war will roll.

Is that so? Did I get it right? And if yes, what was your experience when using those rules? Did anyone have similar issues with it?
How did your players like it? Did they feel they could influence the course of the battle enough or did you get very weird results?

Thanks in advance for enlightenment!

I haven't used James' Mythic Battles rules for the same reasons you point out: there's either something that I'm missing, or the rules don't represent exactly what I was looking for.

That said, I'll give you two more options that I've used and liked:
1) A previous set of rules for Mass Battles, also by James R Brown, which I like best when conducting army battles.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/391 ... 0Rules.pdf
They're also in his blog.

2) I made my own rules for Mass Battles, more centered around the heroes and their actions than around the armies.
viewtopic.php?f=56&t=3519&hilit=mass+combat

Maybe they're closer to what you're expecting of rules for Mass Battles.

For Mythic battles, I always have the rolls reflect a short burst of advantage or disadvantage going to one side during the course of the battle, rather than be an all or nothing approach. In your original description, when the eye is rolled, rather than that being "The Shadow has prevailed" I would rule that all the enemy are bolstered by a temporary +1 modifier on their rolls. Then the PC's must devise a plan to weaken the moral of the enemy. This is where the Command Objectives and Areas of Engagement come into play.

Usually I set up a few visual aids, pulling out my old LOTR Risk and War of the Ring minis to help represent lines of battle, commanders and other cues for my players to target. (I tend to glue them onto strips of cardboard, so I can move a few unites quickly, similar to all those war movies where people are pushing troop markers with those funny push broom sticks).This way we all can be reminded of what is going on. So when the Enemy gains a significant push on a particular flank, the PC's can see the threat, and try and engage the enemy over in that area. This might translate in game as two or three minor engagements as the PC's work over to the failing flank, thus drawing on those Battle Field Hazards James so eloquently describes.

Lastly, I use a dry erase board to keep track of the changing effects and ramifications the Players actions have in the battle. This board is divided into six zones, representing the two flanks and centers of each army. The PC's move from one zone to another, dictating what encounters will occur, and what bonuses or negative effects are going on in all 6 zones. On the side of this chart is a column for listing the total successes and negatives each army sustains each turn, which will determine if a part of the army is bolstered or weakened, or maybe defeated.

Prince Telvido wrote:For Mythic battles, I always have the rolls reflect a short burst of advantage or disadvantage going to one side during the course of the battle, rather than be an all or nothing approach. In your original description, when the eye is rolled, rather than that being "The Shadow has prevailed" I would rule that all the enemy are bolstered by a temporary +1 modifier on their rolls. Then the PC's must devise a plan to weaken the moral of the enemy. This is where the Command Objectives and Areas of Engagement come into play.

Thanks for your reply Prince Telvido. However, I don't quite get it, sorry. So you are using the Mythic Battle rules but you have a different interpretation of the Assault Wave Table? And what +1 modifier do you mean? In Mythic Battles the adversaries don't roll unless it's a hazard episode.
The part about the "the PC's must devise a plan" is clear, they take some heroic actions to alter the course of battle (they can influence both the engagement mood and the strength of the enemy in certain areas, like the commanders can do).

Falenthal wrote:I haven't used James' Mythic Battles rules for the same reasons you point out: there's either something that I'm missing, or the rules don't represent exactly what I was looking for.

That said, I'll give you two more options that I've used and liked:
1) A previous set of rules for Mass Battles, also by James R Brown, which I like best when conducting army battles.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/391 ... 0Rules.pdf
They're also in his blog.

2) I made my own rules for Mass Battles, more centered around the heroes and their actions than around the armies.
viewtopic.php?f=56&t=3519&hilit=mass+combat

Maybe they're closer to what you're expecting of rules for Mass Battles.

Falenthal, thank you very much for reacting so quickly. I am aware of the Mass Battle rules and decided to go for the more narrative and abstract Mythic Battle rules as they were reflecting pretty much what I was looking for.
Next on my list of playtest episodes is to try both your version and the one from James. But on Sunday I am planning to run a Mythic Battle.

Maybe I will let the players pay with hope once per Mythic Battle for a reroll. All in all that seems to be the one resource that is meant to change things and is very costly. Something like "every hero has to spend one point of hope to re-roll the feat die on the assault wave table - only once per battle".

It's still a little odd that the skills and achievements of the heroes only reduce their personal endurance loss (and increase their loot ) but nothing else... Even the generals and marshals cannot influence the tides of war. Only through a Last Stand episode.

uhu79 wrote:I've recently studied the great stuff that James R. Brown has published on his blog. Many thanks for your contributions by the way, very helpful!

I was especially intrigued by the Mythic Battles fan supplement that I want to give a try this weekend. I am talking about the Narrative Time Mode only here.

First, you are very welcome and I'm glad you like my stuff. But, please keep in mind that my fan-work is not official and perhaps discussions on Mythic Battles should be placed on the House-rules Forum instead to avoid confusion with actual C7 product. I would hate for casual readers and such to get confused or accidentally think my rules are part of the official game. They are not. That being said, I would still like to respond to your concerns.

Secondly, I share the credit for Mythic Battles with a wonderful co-author named S.W. Hodgman. He and I met here on the C7 Forums and have become great friends.

uhu79 wrote:I start with shadow forces having a slight advantage in relative strenght of numbers. So we set shadow threat and engagement mood, talk about tactics, placement and heroes can influence some of it. Fine. We start.

Then we roll an Eye of Sauron on the assault wave table and the whole thing is already over, right? The shadow has shifted to "the Shadow has Prevailed" on the first roll. We still run the whole round and yes, of course, the heroes can go for a Last Stand at the end but then we are up for rolling dice all evening against a huge bunch of adversaries - that's what we wanted to avoid in the first place, didn't we?

And during the course of battle - what can the heroes do to influence the real thing, I mean the next assault wave result? They can't, right? In the end it is completely random where the tides of war will roll.

Your understanding is correct and your concerns are valid. When we designed the rules, Scott and I made a judgment that from a Tolkienian point of view, the main role of the player-heroes in such a large and important battle would be to endure. As I recall, there were insightful discussions on "the long defeat" and predestination. We did not build into the mechanics a way for the player-heroes to affect the Tides of War, only to persevere, whatever the outcome.

I can briefly say, that right after making Mythic Battles public, we spent the following months working on a version 2 to address the issues you have brought up; for you were indeed not the first person to mention them. We have purposely held onto our ideas for our own reasons.

I will make two suggestions though, to perhaps "solve" your problems:

First, if you would like the player-heroes to affect the roll on the Assault Wave table, perhaps you could do so by allowing Player-hero Intervention as described on page 12 of the document. I would personally do this by allowing each player-hero to make a roll using either Wisdom, Valour, or a Weapon skill. The TN would be set based on the Free People's current place on the Relative Strength of Numbers table. TN 14 = "Both sides are near enough evenly sized." Increase the TN by 2 for each level closer to "The Shadow has Prevailed" and decrease the TN by 2 for each level closer to "The Free Peoples are Victorious!"

In order to affect the Feat die roll on the Assault Wave table, the companions need a combined number of successes equal to 2x the number of companions participating in the roll. For example, if there are 5 companions making intervention rolls, they need 10 successes or more to be effective (a great success = 2 successes; extraordinary = 3 successes).

If they succeed, the Feat die is rolled again on the Assault Wave table and the best result is kept. An alternate to this method is to simply increase the result one step higher in favour of The Free Peoples rather than re-rolling. Narration from the player-heroes should accompany the results if they influence the tide.

Second, if you feel that a battle should require more than 1 Assault Wave before ending, regardless of the Relative Strength of Numbers or results of the first roll, state that in the beginning. Perhaps there is a stronghold or natural defense to overcome. Also, keep in mind that new forces can arrive according to your own conditions. This can negate or add to a positive movement toward "The Free Peoples are Victorious!"

jamesrbrown wrote: perhaps discussions on Mythic Battles should be placed on the House-rules Forum

Yes - moderators, please move it if you feel this would be more appropriate.

jamesrbrown wrote: Secondly, I share the credit for Mythic Battles with a wonderful co-author named S.W. Hodgman.

Sorry, Scott! My bad. Many thanks to you, too.

jamesrbrown wrote: I can briefly say, that right after making Mythic Battles public, we spent the following months working on a version 2 to address the issues you have brought up; for you were indeed not the first person to mention them. We have purposely held onto our ideas for our own reasons.

Sounds like you're not gonna tell us more about it, but you didn't expect me not to at least try, right? So any chance for a version 2?

jamesrbrown wrote: I will make two suggestions though, to perhaps "solve" your problems:

Many thanks! I will consider them both and I like the idea of tying the "cost" or difficulty level of the intervention to the current Tides of War. In the end it might be still about spending hope (see my last comment above) but you have a roll and varying TNs first - so that might be better than just spending hope. (In both cases, the PCs will get a chance to narrate their intervention no matter if they roll or just spend hope...)

Would you try to prevent that heroes try this intervention as a standard action every round? What if a failed roll and an Eye of Sauron will trigger a battle hazard just like a failed endurance-test would do? That might let them think twice if they want to risk it.

For your other idea - I agree, straightforward, define a minimum length of 2 rounds for the battle. Done.

uhu79 wrote:Would you try to prevent that heroes try this intervention as a standard action every round? What if a failed roll and an Eye of Sauron will trigger a battle hazard just like a failed endurance-test would do? That might let them think twice if they want to risk it.

Another possibility for introducing a difficult choice in influencing the Tide of War, is to tie failure to the Engagement Mood. If participating player-heroes fail, the ferocity of battle is greater on them during Blood & Tears: increase their Endurance loss by 1 for every failed Endurance test during the current Assault Wave*. Non-participants wouldn't suffer this penalty. This gives them a risky choice whether to intervene after the initial Feat die roll on the Assault Wave table.

If I could go back and re-write the section on Engagement Mood I would take out the underlined portion of this sentence: "It is up to you to decide when and how to change the mood, but the player-heroes should also be afforded opportunities to influence it." I think I would stick to making a Success die roll at the top of every Assault Wave to determine the ebb and flow of ferocity. Then, if Player-hero intervention were to fail to influence the Tide of War, the Engagement Mood would be become more ferocious.

I chose to limit my suggestion for interventions to use either Wisdom, Valour, or a Weapon skill roll. I think these work particularly well here as they are all increased with Experience points and are applied well in the context of war and tactics.

*I like your suggestion of disconnecting the triggering of a Battle Hazard from Endurance tests in Blood & Tears and tying it to an intervention roll on the Assault wave. This would mean failing with an Eye on an Endurance test would always means a Piercing blow and not either/or a Battle Hazard and failing with an Eye on an intervention roll during Tides of War means triggering a Battle Hazard during Blood & Tears OR increasing Endurance losses by 2 during the current Assault Wave if the Loremaster wishes not to use a Battle Hazard.

Great, very good addons! I think I will use this combination of ideas you've just created. Thx again!

uhu79, before your game today, I have one slight tweak to the intervention add-on. Instead of requiring a number of success = 2x the number of companions, make it the number of companions +1. For example, if only one hero decides to use his Valour to influence the Assault Wave result, he must get 2 successes on the roll. If two players want to influence it, they must get 3 successes combined, etc.

By doing this, a greater number of intervening companions means a greater chance of success AND each of them must risk failing, causing greater Endurance loss per failed roll in Blood & Tears.

I'm still wrestling with the Hope requirement. Right now I'm leaning negative.

I do prefer a success to mean moving the Assault Wave result one step higher in favour of The Free Peoples, rather than a complete re-roll.

Additionally, if you want to allow a Commander to intervene, he must give up his other options for the current Assault Wave and simply make an intervention roll using Wisdom, Valour, or a Weapon skill. When Commander's are Loremaster characters, I would make a random table showing Commander options for each Assault Wave and I would roll for their choice each time. I wouldn't want to control that and I wouldn't want the players to control it either. OR, I would ignore the Commander altogether. This is the story of the player-heroes after all!