Dungeon Master: When Armies Clash Examination

Just recently I wrote a little article about adding in mass combat rules into the newest edition of D&D (5^th). Well, recently there was an article on the Wizards of the Coast website doing the same. Since I'm always looking for new rules to add to my games, took a look at the rules and even gave them a quick run, I felt it right to comment on the rules posted in the article “Unearthed Arcana: When Armies Clash”. I suggest a quick read of the article (click the blue text) since it's posted for free on the Wizards of the Coast website (big thanks).

What It Has/What Is Good

These rules in general touch on a lot of nice things for mass combat rules. A morale rule is included. Rules for terrain are included. They generally use mechanics from the main game where they can as well as providing general ways to translate abilities from the main game to the mass combat rules. They also have a concept of isolated groups, meaning that a line and formation has to be maintained or penalties are applied (there needs to be at least one other stand, the smallest bunch of people used in the rules, within a certain range to avoid isolation). They also have provisions for individual “solo” creatures that can also act as commanders. All of this is put into just over 8 pages, making it pretty light as far as mass combat rules go.

What Is Missing

• If you liked the penalties for casualties I had in my optional rule system earlier, this system doesn't have that. Now, it is easy enough to graft those rules onto the system provided by Wizards of the Coast, but it will come at the cost of more things to track (I'm not for or against either choice, but this needs to be noted). Instead of using the members of the unit, just use overall hit points.
• The other interesting thing is that while some quick translations are provided for spell effects, the rules do not allow movement diagonally and don't mention how to handle casting cones on diagonals (or if this is valid).
• The rules also say that you get one square for every 20 feet, but they does not mention what happens if the range is less than that (such as burning hands with 15 feet). It is easy enough to extrapolate, but I feel it should be clearly stated the same way as for ranged attacks.

What Is Wrong

• I really don't like the no diagonally movement rule and would prefer the optional rules from the Dungeon Master's guide instead for diagonal movement (though you would still not be allowed to attack diagonally). There is a similar rule in 3^rd edition.
• Area of effect spells do double damage when cast by a stand of spell casters. I can see why they did this (a solo, such as a player character, does spell damage as normal) but it still doesn't make sense when looking at the melee system. A general at the same level as a stand would do the same amount of damage as a stand of fighters at the same level. In my view, the double damage would need to apply to both mundane weapons and magic to prevent this anomaly with solos.
• Skirmisher units just seem better. The only advantage I could see to a regiment is that they can configure themselves but even that takes a full action (you want to go into a defensive posture while you close the distance to the archers? Once you get there, it will take an action to get out of defend configuration. That is assuming you can close the distance moving at half speed.)
• Units take an action as one, meaning that every stand (the smallest bunch of people used in the rules) that can cast a spell has to cast a spell when taking the cast action (or at least that is how I read it). It also means that the entire regiment unit has to have every stand in the same formation. This means you need to break down your unit into multiple ones for the flanks etc.
• I don't really like the Victory Point idea very much at the time I am writing this. Largely, it is because I feel it should be the role of the players and the characters to decide who won and who lost (unless you are playing these rules as a quick mass battle game). If the players just wish to destroy a single bridge to delay the advance of an army and they get there, destroy it and run away without even coming into contact with the enemy army, is that a total victory, causing units to be eliminated from the advancing army? I like the idea of the survivors fleeing based on a die roll, but I know for sure I'd prefer to decide which units roll and when. The good news is that anyone who feels like I do can just ignore that entire section.

Conclusion

It is nice to have some mass combat rules in D&D. That way, even if there are other rule sets, there is at least some system to fall back on if you have no other. However, as written, I am not really a big fan of them. This is largely because of what I see as the disparity between skirmisher and regiment units and the same mundane damage being done by a stand as well as a solo (assuming a fighter stand and a fighter player of the same level). I don't quite know how I feel about the entire unit taking one action idea, which makes me think there is something I don't like but I can't quite put my finger on what. The diagonal movement and casting is easy enough for an experienced Dungeon Master to house rule and fix, so I don't view those as too much of a concern. Should those 3 issues I mentioned previously be fixed (either in the rules or by house rules), I'd have liked it more. The rules are playable but could use more tweaking (but hey, that is why it is in draft form) to rise above alright. 

Dungeon Master: Player Freedom

I lightly touched upon this in my previous piece “How the World Acts”, but the influence players have is an extremely important part of a campaign. The entire tone of the game can be influenced and created based on the amount of freedom players have. For the rest of this piece, I will talk about the concept of freedom and how it applies to creating adventures.

Railroading and Bounded Freedom

An important part of being a Dungeon Master is not to railroad your players. However, depending on the kind of game, there will be certain things that cannot be achieved no matter how high you roll on the D20. If your players are expecting a down to earth, realistic-ish game (yeah, yeah, magic isn't real but it still follows internal rules), a natural 20 shouldn't let your character jump to the moon. Part of running a game is defining this boundary in a consistent way. There are even games I have played in where there is nothing off the table and while it was fun, it created a tone that was comical. For this reason, bounded freedom is an important element in creating the overall tone of a session.

The idea of limited freedom isn't the same as railroading, and I want to make that very clear. In normal day to day life, you are limited by the rules of the world but at the same time you have freedom to live within those rules. I like to think of a game to be the exact same. The issue is when your players don't like the rules and boundaries you have set up as the Dungeon Master or when you restrict their choices because of a grand plan. It is easy to accidentally railroad players, especially when lacking experience as a Dungeon Master, so keeping these ideas in mind is important.

Finding the Right Balance

Trial, error, and knowing your group. That basic approach to just about every element of a good session is also needed here. There is such a thing as too much player freedom. When is this the case? That depends on your players. The nature of role-playing games is that player actions should have effects and be acted on (actions have consequences). Certain reactions may limit player choices but that makes sense from a narrative perspective (consequences can limit freedom). Depending on the kind of game, though, the difficulty to accomplish a task will be different. For example, how difficult should it be to cut a rope from 300 feet away using a single arrow from a longbow? Well, depending on the kind of game you are playing, the answer could be from easy (though this is probably unlikely), to hard (more likely), to nearly impossible (the more realistic games would probably say this). If the difficulty is off to either direction, players won't be happy.

Plotting Advice

“Design the problem and the rules for the world but don't worry about the best solution.”

From my humble experience, the line from bounded freedom to railroading is crossed when the game master has a storyline in mind for the entire game. What this article boils down to is that quote at the start of this section. If the Dungeon Master defines the rules and consequences for actions, the players can solve that problem or confront that situation in any way they wish within the framework the Dungeon Master has set up. If the Dungeon Master has defined the entire story with every scene having a solution he has placed there, we tend to end up having railroading. This isn't to say the Dungeon Master can't give help through items and non-player characters, but the players should be free to use that help as they see fit as long as it fits into the framework built.  

Dungeon Master: How the World Acts

In general, the world itself is an important part of a session. However, at the big picture level there are a few different ways to handle creating worlds. As the Dungeon Master you don't want to railroad your players into a certain path but at the same time they shouldn't be the only actors in the game. Today, I will talk about the two main ones I see. In general, it boils down to one system where the world always reacts to the players and the other where characters have their own choices that they are making, meaning events will unfold without the players.

The Static World

There are many games I've played where the world stays the same and waits for the players to act. Naturally, this allows for a great amount of freedom as no planning goes out the window when the players try to do something outside the box (the world simply reacts). However, while it is easy to plan, this method also has a way of making the world seem stiff. There aren't any pressing matters outside the actions of the players (the Dungeon Master will think of those when they get to it). The non-player characters simply react to the actions of players instead of acting for themselves. The details for the characters are filled in as needed in reaction to the players' actions instead of being planned in advance. This also runs the risk of making mistakes, since the plan isn't thought up in advance. As the players talk to people, the Dungeon Master will need to fill in the gaps for the character in terms of back story, motivation and other elements needed to complete the reaction. However, in this case the characters are reacting to the players and so is the Dungeon Master.

The Non-player Characters as Actors

If the entire party just ceased to exist, the world will continue. It could be that the campaign is low key so their absence makes a small change. It could be that the disappearance of the players dooms the entire world eventually. Regardless, without the players, events will unfold a certain way. As a Dungeon Master, it is still important not to railroad the players. Instead, this approach is better thought of as creating the world and a general progression (it shouldn't be specific, or this ends up being railroading) for it without player involvement. The players are then put into this system and allowed to act as they would like. Hopefully, since the Dungeon Master hasn't planned out the entire path the players can take, they aren't being railroaded. They are merely put into a system of defined actors that have their own behaviours and given free rein to do as they wish. This also means that events will move forward if players do nothing. However, the exact interventions players can make to shift the path are not made. Naturally, to create the motivations, paths and everything else requires time and effort.

As a side note, the general path that events will take can be determined by using dice at the needed times. This will mean there will be certain events that will be very hard to shift or that will occur without player involvement, but you aren't sure or don't really care which path the story takes (sometimes, you have a bunch of paths and they all sound awesome). The key here is to keep it general and vague to avoid railroading. If the situation comes up, you are ready to roll. If the situation doesn't come up it isn't a big loss since all you have written down is one sentence.

Using Both as Needed

Treating every NPC as an actor and defining their history, motivation and general path takes time. It makes sense that not every NPC needs to be defined in such a way. In such a case the important characters can be treated as actors and defined a head of time. A low ranked guard probably won't have a big effect on the world and could probably be thought up on the spot (especially in a formal situation where they wouldn't be able to speak freely anyway). The captain, however, will probably be more important.

Example

As a quick example, take the below as an example of using both types.

• There are three groups all wanting control of an artifact (it cannot be destroyed).
• Currently the artifact is possessed by “The Defenders”, who simply want to guard it to ensure it isn't used. Their leader believes that any use of the artifact will end badly and so it needs to be protected at all costs. They are the strongest of the groups thanks to the skill of their personnel.
• A second group (“The Evil Ones”) will try to attack and take the artifact by force. Their leader is over confident of his group's abilities and brash. He wants to please his gods and wreaking havoc by using the artifact will accomplish that.
• A third group (“The Healers”) want the artifact in order to use it to undo the damage that was done during the war a few years earlier (if you need a number, take 32). Their leader is caring, sympathetic and believes in the greater good. However, he also believes that “The Defenders” are wrong and causing suffering.
• Without player involvement, “The Evil Ones” will attack “The Defenders” and try to take the artifact. Roll a D10 for “The Defenders” and a D8 for “The Evil Ones”. Higher number wins and destroys the side of the lower number. Subtract the number rolled by the loser from the dice max of the winner to determine their new dice. Round up to the next highest dice if the new number is not a valid dice (if the result is 0 or lower, the winner is also destroyed). This is their dice from now on. In the case of a tie, determine the new dice for each side as described above but the artifact remains in the possession of the defenders, whoever they may be at the time. If the dice of “The Defenders” drops below the dice of “The Healers” (they start with a D8), “The Healers” will attack. If “The Evil Ones” gain control of the artifact, “The Healers” will know and attack them (regardless of dice). Should “The Healers” gain control of the artifact, they will try to use it to heal the magic damage but actually make things worse, forcing the entire region to be abandoned. For all attacks without player involvement, use bolded text. Otherwise, use the dice to determine relative strengths of the two sides when setting up the fight.

In the above path, the players can do all sorts of things to skew the dice, try to change the actions of the groups (maybe they can convince “The Guardians”, or find a way that will actually work for “The Healers”) but without their involvement, they will be hearing about these events from shocked people and refugees.

People other than the leaders of the factions react to the players. Create the back stories and everything else as needed from player involvement.

Note: Using averages “The Defenders” will roll a 5.5 while “The Evil Ones” roll a 4.5. This means (10 – 4.5 = 5.5, rounds to D6) that “The Defenders” hold out but are left with a D6. Seeing an opportunity “The Healers” attack “The Defenders” (rolling a 4.5 against a 3.5). They win and use the artifact, rendering the region uninhabitable.

Conclusion

This piece ended up being longer than I originally planned, but I hope it got the ideas flowing. The big take away here is in deciding which characters the players will act without player involvement and which characters the players will only notice if they actively try to interact with them. The line isn't clear cut, since a merchant may not feature at all since the characters don't go to a certain city (this would be a reaction) or the players may still hear the gossip about how a merchant two cities over made a fortune selling high quality swords that he obviously couldn't afford to have bought (this would be something actively happening in the world without them). Still, I feel it is an important concept to consider.  

Dungeon Master: Ceremonial Swords

It's easy to start to get fascinated with weapons such as swords. However, not all swords have to be magic to be special. On that thought, I will list a few ceremonial, mundane swords that could be used in different games to add flavour to various regions. Take as little or as much as you want. These types aren't completely separate as well, so feel free to combine elements (fancy pommel on a utilitarian sword, etc.)

Really Fancy Sword

Description

This kind of sword is as exquisite as they can be. Everything from scabbard (it is uncommon for such a sword to be kept in a sheath) to the sword itself is usually decorated with engraving and on the upper end of the quality spectrum, gold. Still, practicality is considered in the making of such swords (high quality materials are usually used, though counterfeit are known to exist and lower quality weapons often used by lower nobles) and as such they can still be used in combat if needed. However, the decorations can be scratched or chipped when used in the way a sword normally would be.

In the World

“One's possessions reflect on their owner.”

In a culture where such swords are present, they are a way of showing off wealth and success. For this reason, it is considered important to fix the damage that occurs from use. While it isn't uncommon to see such swords with damage, it reflects on the owner. While having a sword of this quality, even when damaged, puts the owner above normal people, being seen with a damaged sword tends to give the impression of the lowest rank of noblemen (though damage to some parts can easily be hidden).

Utilitarian Swords

Description

While the overall design of these weapons is simple, every part of their construction is meant to be used in combat. The overall quality of these weapons ranges, but on the upper end of the spectrum the quality is as good as any other, if not better. Since no consideration is given to appearance, these weapons have no weaknesses or extra weight created by cosmetic work.

In the World

“A weapon is meant to be used.”

Weapons of this type are worn by those who actually use them in. For this reason, if a sword is seen at the side of a noble, it is almost a given that they know how to use it (exceptions occur with young nobles from army backgrounds). It is also not uncommon for people to wear the under-padding from their armour as clothing. However, like the sword, the under-padding is expected to be exactly as used in battle. The beauty in these items is their simplicity and effectiveness and any addition purely for cosmetic reasons is seen as ruining the weapon.

Decorative Sword

Description

There are places where having a real weapon is frowned upon, but where the association with the sword may be desired. In such cases, other items such as pins can be used to suggest the background of the individual. If, however, the image of the sword wielding noble is needed, a purely decorative sword is acceptable in some places. These kinds of swords can range from simple pieces meant to signify that the owner knows how to employ weapons of war to elaborately adorned pieces. They are artistic pieces that look like a sword in its scabbard or sheath, but are incapable of actually being used as a sword since they are a single piece.

In the World

“There is a place for weapons, but my home is not it.”

Swords of this type are often seen in cultures where having a weapon outside of war is seen as aggressive and bringing a weapon into the home of another is a great insult. Such swords would be checked at the door. Though they lack a cutting edge or thrusting point, they are still heavy enough to cause blunt damage when swung, similar to a mace. Since it is meant as a decoration, using such a thing as a weapon is generally not a consideration in the construction and as such damage is possible. Stories regarding nobles who lose their tempers and start fighting with these blunt swords are quite famous but doing so is considered to be the lowest of actions. A few stories do talk about such an action favourably, but in such a case the person who was hit with the decorative sword was extremely hated.  

Dungeon Master: 5 Uncommonly Used Game Elements

Usually, I talk about some of the solutions I have for certain tabletop role-playing game issues or general concepts. This time, I will instead talk about elements I haven't seen used very much over the time I've played. Some of these could be overlooked for good reason, but I still want to list them for the purposes of discussion. In general, they will tend to be big things I feel should be used more often.

Languages

It's common to select different languages based on an assortment of conditions (feats, intelligence, etc.). However, I haven't really seen this amount to much in practice. Properly using language as a cultural barrier in foreign lands can create a unique experience as well as make learning new languages through mechanics a viable option, instead of being mere fluff.

Food/Rations

I haven't played very many games where rations and food play a major factor. I've played a few, and remember them fondly, but in general it seems to be work for no real gain in most games. As a quick aside, it is easy enough to abstract that stuff away by having players say where they wish to go and have the costs paid as they leave the town/city.

Owning Property/Businesses

In D&D 5^th edition, we have a set of rules for property and businesses in the Dungeon Master's Guide. In my opinion, the math tends to work out in such a way that it isn't that attractive as an option. When they do play a role, I have noticed that they don't really contribute to the story (excluding the times where players are close enough to their property to be able to go there during their down time). However, if we are dealing with earth shattering events, player owned keeps and businesses can and arguably should play major roles in the story. If their business or property is doing well, it can overlap with the “Reputation” section below.

Reputation

It could be the kinds of games I played, but in general the impression the players make on other characters is overlooked. I don't mean just on major characters, but for simple people who might have heard the stories. I say this since I remember a story of one adventure we did as a group being so distorted that it took us multiple sessions just to realize that they were talking about something we did as the party. To really consider this element, even things such as items and clothing need to be considered, since they can also carry their own reputation. Once again, for some kinds of games, this could just drag the game to a halt. For political intrigue games, I would probably say this kind of thing should play a major role. In general, seeing the effects on the world, even if it is extremely small such as a character remembering a favour or slight, should be present in a game to make the world come to life. Even if the characters aren't important enough to make big changes, things should still be happening that will affect them in some way. It could be fluff or minor, but having the world change instead of remaining static can be a good thing.

Longish Term Injuries and Consequences

Let me clear, by longish I mean multiple sessions. It can be cured 2 sessions later in a temple, but for my purposes, that is still long term. Usually, injuries don't that have other effects than lower health points until you rest or heal. However, even if it is temporary, long term injuries and other consequences, when done fairly, can add immensely to the overall tone of the game (this will once again depend on the tone you are trying to create as a Dungeon Master). It could just be the kinds of games I ended up playing in, but often times the general

Conclusion

Those are the first 5 that came to my head. If there is something that you felt reading this that should have been mentioned or I should have left off, feel free to say so. This is also true if you feel there is a good reason those elements aren't being used more often. I merely wanted to get some more attention on these topics and have people consider these elements.

Dungeon Master: In-Game Weather

Typically, in the games I have played in, weather does not have a meaningful role besides adding to the atmosphere (despite D&D 5^th edition, the newest edition at the time I am writing this, having a fatigue system). Sometimes, weather is completely left out and not even mentioned over the course of the entire campaign. As I result I thought it fit to go over some general strategies to let weather play a bigger role. As usual, this piece applies to all tabletop role-playing games but will have an emphasis on D&D 5^th edition.

When to Use It

Unless the campaign is set somewhere that would make the weather a constant factor, making it have a mechanical effect should be used sparingly. There is going to be certain types of campaigns were it will need to play a major role at almost every turn (a campaign in the desert or on a ship). For the majority of them, however, the weather will mostly create atmosphere. In these kinds of cases one or two lines describing the weather and how it affects players would be enough (interlacing this with character actions also makes it feel more thematic). I would also say that weather should only be described when the weather changes, when it directly affects an action they are taking, or when players ask. Having the weather change, villagers comment on it and the occasional extreme helps flesh out regions and in campaigns were there is a lot of travelling, helps give each area an identity.

When to Use a Fatigue System

Naturally, if the weather somehow makes the characters hungrier, thirstier or more tired more quickly and the rule system already has a fatigue system (D&D 5^th edition, I'm looking at you), it is straight forward to apply that same system. If it doesn't you'll have to make one up, applying penalties you think are fair. It is also worth noting if the effects can be lessened or ignored by travelling slower and more carefully (either giving advantage to the check, ignoring the check all together, or rolling checks less often).

When Not to Use a Fatigue System

I generally say that if the effects of the weather go away when characters step indoors, then the fatigue system shouldn't be used. This gives the Dungeon Master more freedom to have effects for strange and possibly magical weather (for those times you find yourself on an alternate plane of existence). Most of the time, the major effects will be penalties to perception checks to see people in the distance and perception checks for detecting creatures for the purposes of determining surprise (in this case, I would suggest to use the concealment system currently in D&D). However, the weather could add additional penalties or bonuses. The weather and type of terrain will also determine how far away you would have to be for concealment to apply (open plains and a very clear day would allow for very long distances). An example of a bonus would be a particularly good day for sailing may increase the speed a ship moves.

Conclusion

Though this is shorter than my usual pieces, I hope it got people thinking about weather as an element of a campaign or session. In the case of areas with mild weather, I feel using such elements can really add to a game and help build the world. In campaigns built around extreme environments, I feel it can make a game memorable. If there are particularly good examples of weather being used in your games, I would love to hear them.  

Dungeon Master: Describing In-Game Items

Typically, descriptions of items, weapons and armor are kept short. In this way, D&D 5^th edition is no exception (the lists themselves are quite short for this edition). This, however, can be a good thing as it allows a wide variety of different descriptions for armor that has the same AC. I will cover a few different methods of describing such items ranging from strict to very loose. For discussion purposes, I will just go over both (I have used them both in the past, depending on the type of game at play). As usual, it should also apply to tabletop role-playing games other than D&D, but D&D will be the only one I explicitly mention. To display my points, I will focus on armor (since armors have stats) but they can be applied to any other kind of item.

Descriptions As They Are

I have to be honest, I typically am not really a fan of the different armors as traditionally described in game. The gold costs and AC values tend to be fine, but the actual armor appearance and name can sometimes turn into an argument (I say this as someone who has spent too much time listening to why studded leather armor is historically dumb). For this reason, I am generally in favour of describing the armors however is needed for the game being played.

Strict Approach

If the descriptions are extremely strict, the variations in the descriptions will be extremely tiny. Plate armor is plate armor, and that is all. For in world consistency, this system means the players can easily identify a rough AC for NPC's simply from their description. However, it also can make it difficult for some character concepts. If you have a fighter who is meant to look like a Templar wearing chain mail, but for combat reasons wants to wear plate, it can create a situation where the role-playing and character appearance directly conflict with the best choice for combat. For some weapons not directly covered in the rules, it can be difficult to find the closest analog for them.

Pros

• The world is internally consistent. Plate is always better than chain mail, meaning players can identify better equipped troops.
• There is no “inferior” quality chain mail.

Cons

• Players are restricted in how they can describe their character based on the armor they bought.

Very Loose Approach

The basis of this approach is that if you pay the required gold amount in the table, you can describe the armor however you want. There can be added restrictions, such as heavy armor must be made from mainly metal, but they are not required. The advantage of this kind of method is that players can look however they want and still be as effective as someone who used by the book descriptions. However, as a result, it can make it difficult to identify the AC of an NPC. It also places magic items into a weird position, since a +2 set of chain mail is now the same as a set that was bought using the price of plate (making it not as rare).

Pros

• Players are free to describe their appearance however they wish. The protection is always determined by how much they paid.
• Not every set of mundane chain mail will be of the same quality now, possibly adding to the immersion (minimum stat levels may be required).

Cons

• Internal consistency of the world is sacrificed, as it is now possible to have chain mail as good as plate armor.
• Differences in quality of the same armor type would need to be described to players instead of just the armor type (this means the description will be longer, taking up more time for play). These descriptions can be held back until the players ask for them, in order to save time.

Identically Stated Armor

If your player has a particular type of armor they want to use that is not in the list by default (maybe metal lamellar over chain mail), regardless of the approach, an analog will need to be found in the list. As a result, it isn't really making a new type of armor as re-skinning an old one.

Conclusion

I hope the above discussion at least got people thinking about these differences. Like everything in a tabletop role-playing game, the best choice will depend on the group. In general, I haven't seen the loose approach used very often, but I have had many games I enjoyed with it and wanted to mention it.