Mass Combat for D&D using Risk Rules - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Mass Combat for D&D using Risk Rules

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Siberys
Nov 24, 2006 21:17:06 The problem of D&D mass combat has risen many times and various solutions have been suggested, including using mob-like and classic wargame templates. All of these are extremely involved, however, and may take large amounts of time to work out. I propose another way to deal with this problem; abstracted combat, and, more specifically, the classic abstract war-game of domination, Risk.

HOW IT WORKS

Battlescale Risk works just as standard Risk, with some modifications, described below.

SETUP

First, draw a map of an appropriate size; it should have enough room to place a large number of miniatures (that are about equal in size to a Tiny DDM miniature). Then, make one Territory Card for each country and put either "Infantry", "Cavalry", or "Artillery", divided equally between the three. This is for gaining extra reinforcements as described in the Risk rules. Create two "Wild Cards" that count as any one of the three, too.

The map should have a total of forty-two areas hereafter referred to as "countries" (even if the map is not on a world-scale) divided among six groupings hereafter referred to as "continents," (again, we are calling them these for ease of reference, as most times this is implemented at most, on Large Mountain Valley scale or some such). Each continent should be made up of a number of interconnected countries.

If one is in complete control of a whole continent, they get bonus reinforcements during the reinforcements phase. The numbers are given below.

#2
finarin_panjoro
Dec 05, 2006 12:57:17 I'm a big fan of using the mob rules for PC centric mass combats, but if I were ever going to do a truly large scale war and the PCs were in a position to be the commanders as well as participants I would use a system like this. I look forward to seeing your example map. Well done.
#3
zombiegleemax
Dec 05, 2006 14:51:00 Well, it’s okay... but to me, it’s too abstract; This system doesn’t take into account things like race, level, equipment, etc. that are fundamental, IMO, to every game of D&D. Gaining Reinforcements it’s another unrealistic thing; in D&D, if you don’t have 200 men to come help you, they won’t pop out from air, and finding a justification for them every time doesn’t seem good to me.

And by the way: you should explain a little more the rules of Risk, not everyone knows it. (I’m from Argentina, and here, the most popular "abstract" strategy game around is the "T.E.G." (the translation is "Strategy and Tactics of the War", or something like that.)
#4
zombiegleemax
Dec 05, 2006 16:32:29 Preparing something like this, thinking through the rules and drawing up a map, getting the figures together and actually presenting this to your players is a serious investment of time and effort. You've got to look at the pros and cons of this system. It's got this going for it:

-Established basic combat rules that nearly everyone who's anyone knows
-Representation of a large army

That's it. However, it's plagued with problems like:

-Massive preparation time
-Ruleset that differs dramatically from core D&D
-Vague and imprecise combat rules

Furthermore, you make suggestions for mixing D&D and risk rules, but they don't really make any sense. Why does smite allow you to reroll? With no definitive way to translate abilities, a DM is going to have to houserule dozens of times on the spot.

The simple fact is that the Risk system is too far gone from D&D to serve any real useful function. The rules gap is too wide and quite frankly, it would ruin the suspension of disbelief.

You say that other systems are too elaborate, but this Risk system is far more involved and imprecise. If you can refine this somehow, if you can manage to make it into a system that accurately simulates large-scale combat which allows the players to serve a major but not overwhelming role, and most of all, if you can make it into a seamless and solid ruleset, then you've got something that belongs in Redgar’s.
#5
Siberys
Dec 06, 2006 17:42:46 @ Eital - I would, but can't. This is about as far as I can go without breaking copyright rules, despite the fact that D&D and Risk are owned by the same company. The specifics, too, were less important, but there are ways for class and level to have an effect, right here:

(An interesting variant would be for heroes to count as a number of battalions equal to their CR, but that may be a bit hard to track).

and

A PC could use his special abilities in combat. In one Risk round, a paladin, for example, could make a full attack or use his Holy Smite class feature. Each ability would then grant a bonus on one action during the game - again, a full attack might provide a +1 to the highest attack roll in the next attack, Holy Smite might allow you to reroll your lowest attack in your next invasion, and the Summon Monster spells may add a number of reinforcements equal to the spell's level at the start of the next round. The effects of certain abilities are left up to the DM, though.

Ideas would be appreciated, so if you've got some to refine the above ideas, I'll gladly take them!

@ Argon_Asimov - Ahh, but the complication is EXACTLY what I was seeking to eliminate; hence "Abstracted".

In regards to your specific problems with the system -

1) Massive Prep Time

True, but it's still not as large an amount of prep time as mob combat or, heaven forbid, normal D&D, at least for mass combat. Also, when I thought of the system, the idea was for REALLY big battles (as I don't see how mass combat could be insignificant, at least in regards to a D&D game), the sort of you'd be preparing weeks in advance for anyway.

2) Dramatic Rules difference (which ties in with #3, so I explain them at once)

Yes, another truth. But if I were to move it closer to D&D, it would needlessly complicate matters. I added the minor bonuses thing as an attempt to have the PC's stats have a bearing on the mass combat. It's vague because I don't particularly want to go through EVERY SPELL AND ABILITY and assign it Risk benefit, and that'd defeat the purpose, I think.

The reroll thing, I was trying to come up with something other than a simple bonus to the roll. Rerolling came to mind, and the first combat ability that I thought of afterwards was smiting.

Also, what's so confusing about the D&D translation? It's very straightforward. You use an ability, it has some minor bonus on the Defense or Attack roll, or maybe reinforcements. The only really confusing thing is how many things you can do in a turn, and I went with the easiest option - each "round" of Risk - each army taking their turn - a PC can do some action he'd normally be allowed to do in a single D&D round.

How is risk more involved and precise? last I checked, you don't roll damage individually for each combatant or battalion, as you would in most D&D-ish mass combat systems. The most involved part is probably the making of the map/cards - and, honestly, this wouldn't be all too hard, as you don't have to worry about specific sizes of areas.

a system that accurately simulates large-scale combat

I wasn't TRYING to be accurate - that's the point of ABSTRACTED ;)

which allows the players to serve a major but not overwhelming role,

I think it already does this, but you’re right, it's not "seamless and solid" - hence why I put it here. I'd like input on how the system WORKS - not if Risk is too "far gone" from D&D, a point I find moot.

@ Finarin Panjoro - It may be a while before the examples up.

Also, any ideas on Warfare feats?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Siberys Nov 24, 2006 21:17:06	The problem of D&D mass combat has risen many times and various solutions have been suggested, including using mob-like and classic wargame templates. All of these are extremely involved, however, and may take large amounts of time to work out. I propose another way to deal with this problem; abstracted combat, and, more specifically, the classic abstract war-game of domination, Risk. HOW IT WORKS Battlescale Risk works just as standard Risk, with some modifications, described below. SETUP First, draw a map of an appropriate size; it should have enough room to place a large number of miniatures (that are about equal in size to a Tiny DDM miniature). Then, make one Territory Card for each country and put either "Infantry", "Cavalry", or "Artillery", divided equally between the three. This is for gaining extra reinforcements as described in the Risk rules. Create two "Wild Cards" that count as any one of the three, too. The map should have a total of forty-two areas hereafter referred to as "countries" (even if the map is not on a world-scale) divided among six groupings hereafter referred to as "continents," (again, we are calling them these for ease of reference, as most times this is implemented at most, on Large Mountain Valley scale or some such). Each continent should be made up of a number of interconnected countries. If one is in complete control of a whole continent, they get bonus reinforcements during the reinforcements phase. The numbers are given below.
#2 finarin_panjoro Dec 05, 2006 12:57:17	I'm a big fan of using the mob rules for PC centric mass combats, but if I were ever going to do a truly large scale war and the PCs were in a position to be the commanders as well as participants I would use a system like this. I look forward to seeing your example map. Well done.
#3 zombiegleemax Dec 05, 2006 14:51:00	Well, it’s okay... but to me, it’s too abstract; This system doesn’t take into account things like race, level, equipment, etc. that are fundamental, IMO, to every game of D&D. Gaining Reinforcements it’s another unrealistic thing; in D&D, if you don’t have 200 men to come help you, they won’t pop out from air, and finding a justification for them every time doesn’t seem good to me. And by the way: you should explain a little more the rules of Risk, not everyone knows it. (I’m from Argentina, and here, the most popular "abstract" strategy game around is the "T.E.G." (the translation is "Strategy and Tactics of the War", or something like that.)
#4 zombiegleemax Dec 05, 2006 16:32:29	Preparing something like this, thinking through the rules and drawing up a map, getting the figures together and actually presenting this to your players is a serious investment of time and effort. You've got to look at the pros and cons of this system. It's got this going for it: -Established basic combat rules that nearly everyone who's anyone knows -Representation of a large army That's it. However, it's plagued with problems like: -Massive preparation time -Ruleset that differs dramatically from core D&D -Vague and imprecise combat rules Furthermore, you make suggestions for mixing D&D and risk rules, but they don't really make any sense. Why does smite allow you to reroll? With no definitive way to translate abilities, a DM is going to have to houserule dozens of times on the spot. The simple fact is that the Risk system is too far gone from D&D to serve any real useful function. The rules gap is too wide and quite frankly, it would ruin the suspension of disbelief. You say that other systems are too elaborate, but this Risk system is far more involved and imprecise. If you can refine this somehow, if you can manage to make it into a system that accurately simulates large-scale combat which allows the players to serve a major but not overwhelming role, and most of all, if you can make it into a seamless and solid ruleset, then you've got something that belongs in Redgar’s.
#5 Siberys Dec 06, 2006 17:42:46	@ Eital - I would, but can't. This is about as far as I can go without breaking copyright rules, despite the fact that D&D and Risk are owned by the same company. The specifics, too, were less important, but there are ways for class and level to have an effect, right here: (An interesting variant would be for heroes to count as a number of battalions equal to their CR, but that may be a bit hard to track). and A PC could use his special abilities in combat. In one Risk round, a paladin, for example, could make a full attack or use his Holy Smite class feature. Each ability would then grant a bonus on one action during the game - again, a full attack might provide a +1 to the highest attack roll in the next attack, Holy Smite might allow you to reroll your lowest attack in your next invasion, and the Summon Monster spells may add a number of reinforcements equal to the spell's level at the start of the next round. The effects of certain abilities are left up to the DM, though. Ideas would be appreciated, so if you've got some to refine the above ideas, I'll gladly take them! @ Argon_Asimov - Ahh, but the complication is EXACTLY what I was seeking to eliminate; hence "Abstracted". In regards to your specific problems with the system - 1) Massive Prep Time True, but it's still not as large an amount of prep time as mob combat or, heaven forbid, normal D&D, at least for mass combat. Also, when I thought of the system, the idea was for REALLY big battles (as I don't see how mass combat could be insignificant, at least in regards to a D&D game), the sort of you'd be preparing weeks in advance for anyway. 2) Dramatic Rules difference (which ties in with #3, so I explain them at once) Yes, another truth. But if I were to move it closer to D&D, it would needlessly complicate matters. I added the minor bonuses thing as an attempt to have the PC's stats have a bearing on the mass combat. It's vague because I don't particularly want to go through EVERY SPELL AND ABILITY and assign it Risk benefit, and that'd defeat the purpose, I think. The reroll thing, I was trying to come up with something other than a simple bonus to the roll. Rerolling came to mind, and the first combat ability that I thought of afterwards was smiting. Also, what's so confusing about the D&D translation? It's very straightforward. You use an ability, it has some minor bonus on the Defense or Attack roll, or maybe reinforcements. The only really confusing thing is how many things you can do in a turn, and I went with the easiest option - each "round" of Risk - each army taking their turn - a PC can do some action he'd normally be allowed to do in a single D&D round. How is risk more involved and precise? last I checked, you don't roll damage individually for each combatant or battalion, as you would in most D&D-ish mass combat systems. The most involved part is probably the making of the map/cards - and, honestly, this wouldn't be all too hard, as you don't have to worry about specific sizes of areas. a system that accurately simulates large-scale combat I wasn't TRYING to be accurate - that's the point of ABSTRACTED ;) which allows the players to serve a major but not overwhelming role, I think it already does this, but you’re right, it's not "seamless and solid" - hence why I put it here. I'd like input on how the system WORKS - not if Risk is too "far gone" from D&D, a point I find moot. @ Finarin Panjoro - It may be a while before the examples up. Also, any ideas on Warfare feats?