Re: Running a gang

From: Mike Holmes <homeydont_at_...>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 21:59:34 -0000


I think people have hit some salient points. I have one more. Basically, this just doesn't work as a group simple contest. I was thinking about it.

Let's admit that Run Away 14 isn't likely to be something that all masons have. Let's say that mason doesn't have anything in their profession keyword at all that will help in a fight. Oh, I think that they would, Strong, for instance (who ever heard of a weak stonemason?), but let's not argue that. Let's consider just their homeland Keywords.

Are these Masons all Orphans? Without adopted families? No relationships at all? Assuming that they have one relationship at 17 to their families, that's a +2 per Mason who is running for his life to get back to his family or whoever is important to them. Starting at a default of 6 for whatever contest you want to run here, that's a 6W6 for 60 masons. Better hope that they're not Orlanthi - that would give them Brave at 17 for 6W12. And let's not let them get any bonuses for using hammers and other mason equipment. If half of them carry devices that rate just a +1 that's 16W13. I think that they'd turn and fight at this point. ;-)

See the problem? Let's say they are strong, and those implements would work against, say, a mountain at +2 for each person (at least). Now we're looking at a group of 60 men who have something like a 16W25 to destroy Kero Fin. Should be a piece of cake with numbers like those, but we all know this isn't right.

Basically, the team augmenting thing can't be allowed to work for more than a few people. Very rapidly there's a diminishing return on effort and exponential qualities of the scale that aren't modeled by linear adding. At scales like this, the resistance of the contest should be based on an abstract of the overall situation. The mass rules apply.

All of the augments like I'm assembling above add to one theoretical figure. Let's say he gets to 14 total. If the odds were 6 to 1 (assuming a large group of PCs and followers), that's then +30 for the masons just based on numbers, for 4W2. This goes against the tactics ability of the lead PC. If he has to default to Close combat, that's probably with an improv penalty (this is really a more tactical situation than an CC siuation in any case). So given the numbers that you had, I think 4W2 is goint to be a good challenge.

Now, your objection to doing mass combat was that each player wouldn't be allowed to participate individually in terms of what they might add. But what I'd do is expose each of the PCs to another simple contest. I mean, what does the outcome of a mass conflict say about the participants? Let's say that they get a marginal defeat. Does that -1 mean that all of the PCs are hurt? Or, on the other hand if the Masons get the defeat, does that mean that they're all hurt? No, it means that some are dead, and some have escaped, right (ala Michael's analysis or something like it)? So what does it mean for the PCs? Well, what I'd do is make the PCs make individual rolls against the general situation. This would be modified by the overall battle victory or defeat. So, if it was a Major Victory, each PC rolls against the resistance cut in half. If they got a failure, then they roll with their ability appropriately reduced. The end result tells a relative story of how well the individual fared. How many did he kill individually, and was he hurt in the process?

This is actually a pretty standard rule in many mass combat games. One roll for the overall battle adjusts individual character rolls to determine how each did.

This is simpler than an extended contest, but yet still gives as much detail in terms of who accomplished what, and who is how wounded, etc.

Mike

Powered by hypermail