[First time posting on these forums, so please, be gentle... ]
Here's a little context to help frame the scope of my question. In the next stage of my homebrew campaign, the city my players are in is under threat of being assaulted by a hobgoblin army. As they aren't soldiers (or even residents of the city), they aren't obligated to take part in the defence. However they will requested by the king to help if they so choose. I have other contingencies in place in case they choose to bail.
If they choose to help out for the siege, the plan I currently have in mind is to make preparations into an extended skill challenge. They have several days of world time to help the city in one of three areas: Defences (working with soldiers, barricades, siege weapons etc), Support (preparing medical supplies, creating and transporting ammunition, arranging messengers etc), and Civics (organising the militia and city guard in case of a breach, evacuating civilians, preparing firefighting equipment, etc). Each success they get on their skill challenge will allocate 1pt to one of the three categories and a fail awards no points (for added spice: a Nat20 awards 2pts, a Nat1 subtracts a point). Once the preparation time is done, the attack will commence. There will be encounters during the battle for the PCs to participate in, which will have the chance to add extra points to their preparation categories. Once the battle is over, the number of points assigned to each category will influence the severity of the consequences the city suffers. More points in a category results in better outcomes for the city in that aspect.
This is where we get to the heart of my question. I'm unsure if the overall outcome of the assault should be predetermined ie should the city ultimately survive or fall? Or should the survival of the city be influenced by the distribution of the points plus the outcome of the encounters, and if so, how much?
I have conflicting feelings about both options, and I'm looking for some input into which one people feel would give my players the most agency while acknowledging that they are just 6 7th-level characters in a city of thousands, so their individual contributions could be lost in the throng. In my original idea, I had the outcome as being predetermined, but with more severe consequences for lower points. For example, 11-15 points in the Defences category would result in only 25% losses for the defending army, 6-10 would result in 50% losses and <5 points would result in 75% losses. In all cases, the enemy is still repelled and the city remains standing. I asked this question of my partner very vaguely (as he's also a player in my group), and he didn't seem to be a fan of having a predetermined outcome especially if he knew it was coming. At the same time, determining the overall outcome based on the actions of a small band of individuals seems odd to me: it feels too much like diminishing the actions of NPCs while making the actions of the PCs disproportionately important.
Are there any fellow DMs out there who have encountered similar situations in their games? How did you resolve the issue? I'm happy to rework the points system to allow for more granular outcomes, one or more of which may be the fall of the city.
Don't make the players' actions completely meaningless. If your story needs the city to fall, it's fine to have the city fall even if the players succeed at their skill challenge. As you say, they're six people in a city of thousands. But make them feel like they've won something. Maybe their efforts ensure that more people are able to evacuate before the inevitable fall of the city. If your story needs the city to stand, it's fine to have the defense be successful even if the players don't do anything to help. But make the players feel the consequences of their inaction. Maybe there are more casualties than there would have been, or maybe their favorite pub gets burned down.
The most important thing, especially given what you've said your partner's thoughts were, is to frame the situation such that whatever the players' goal is, that goal is attainable. If you know the city is going to fall, don't let the players feel as though they're trying to save the city. Make sure they know their goal is to evacuate as many people as possible or whatever is appropriate to the situation.
If you're familiar with Star Wars, the battle on Hoth in The Empire Strikes Back is a good example. No one is under any illusion that the Rebels can actually win the battle, so winning is explicitly not the goal. Likewise, if you already know that your city will fall, don't let anyone be under any illusion that it won't. But do give the party a different, actually-achievable goal.
For large scale battles I use Matt Colville's Stronholds and Followers book. Then use that information to run the big battle in between play sessions. That way I, as DM, know the outcome of the overall battle. Which usually should play in the background anyway. And with me knowing the outcome I can narrate during the playsession what is going on.
The PC's can do their own thing and try to complete their own small scale objectives. 1. On a success they can delay the army progress. Giving time for evacuations 2. They can do task force attacks to try and capture important enemy targets 3. Can they find and kill an infiltrating assassin that just killed the city's lord in the midst of chaos etc
Also check out the 3.5 module Red Hand of Doom. It has a Victory Point system. And objectives along the way that PC's can gather to "win" the overall conflict as well. By doing sabotaging/scouting tasks before the army even arrives at the city. Such as taking out key luitenants, making sure that a strong ally of the enemy withdraws their support... things they can do to weaken the opposition.
I think of an assault like this as a single 'scene,' and the goal of that scene is to answer a question about how the story moves forward.
It's perfectly reasonable to run that scene where the question is 'Does the city fall to the invaders or not?' If you ask it this way, then both 'city falls' and 'city does not fall' should be valid outcomes, and the player's/character's actions should contribute toward the result.
However, that is not the only way you might set the scene.
Imagine the same overall scene, but where the primary question the scene is meant to answer is:
"How many resources does the city spend fighting off the invaders, and will they have enough left for (the winter that is settling in/to pay the King's tithe/to feed their vassal lords)?"
"Who will the players save as they flee the overwhelming invasion force?"
One of those assumes the defense of the city is going to 'succeed' but that there are still consequences for winning more or less well. If the city's stores are depleted, the food reserves destroyed or looted, the scouts and hunters killed, that may make winter hard - economic and humanitarian pressures and concerns that will affect the city, its needs, its economy, potentially even how they view the PCs.
The second assumes the city will fall, but asks what smaller successes the party might succeed in en-route. Can they save the mayor/King/princess/wizard/children? Given a choice between two people to look for and save, who do they pick? Who do they leave behind? How does that change the story, access to information or items, etc?
What I would not do is leave the question as 'Does the city fall or not' and predetermine that answer. If you want to predetermine whether the city falls or not, clearly define the narrative question of the scene in that context, and make sure the stakes of failure and success are clear. That will help you set the scene and mood, present choices and paths.
Funny, I have a similar scenario written featuring a goblin army with the basic premise that the PCs are unlikely to stop the assault but their involvement would reduce the number of innocents killed. I decided against running it at a low level after seeing the effort some players had put into their characters. The scenario was designed with the potential to be deadly.
Even though they couldn't stop all of them, every band of goblins killed meant families of NPCs safely extracted to better fortifications. Burning bridges, blocking passes, killing commanders would help even more. Every fight would help the cause - and wear down the PCs. They would have to rest knowing that the goblins were going to keep on killing. It would be a gamble the players could loose if they tried to save everyone.
I mention all this because resurrection is easier to afford at lv7 and you might be able to try something similar. Give the players a chance to win if they are willing to take the risk. Given the terrain, a group of 6 might be able to nuke a hobgoblin warlord and safely extract (or not).
I like the preparation game you've come up with enough that I want to try it myself.
I just want to second SagaTympana's answer. Its fine if the city is supposed to fall, just make sure the players know that all signs point to that inevitability and that what they are really doing is minimizing losses.
Thanks everyone for their feedback and ideas. Many of the points that have been raised are ones that I've at least mulled over at some point in the last week.
@ Giblix - thanks for the mention of Matt Colville's book - I'll definitely look into it for future scenarios. As for the points about trying to weaken the oncoming army, I have accounted for that as an alternative path for the PCs to take, should they not want to fight in the actual assault. That is, rather that staying in town and preparing the city, they can venture out and try to weaken the army before it gets too close. I have ideas for them to try any manipulate a red dragon into attacking the army because they're passing through it's (newly established) territory without offering any tribute. I think the results would be entertaining...
@SagaTympana, StatelyRaven and Houligan - thanks for the input. After reading your collective ideas, and thinking it through a bit more, I'm more comfortable sticking with my original idea of narrating the survival of the city. I like statelyraven's summary of the scenario (pardon the paraphrasing): "How many resources will the city expend/lose in the battle, and will they have enough left over for what is to come?" As you have all pointed out, I will ensure that I make it clear to the players that the city will stand at the end of the battle regardless of their actions, but that their efforts will have an effect on the city's overall health when the dust settles. I think setting player expectations up front is the key point in this case.
@SirTrent - thanks for the feedback on the prep work! This is the first time I've tried to create a point system like this, so I don't know if it'll balance out or not. I know other campaigns and systems have used similar systems, which I probably subconsciously copied. Also, last night I planned out a number of possible encounters for the PCs to engage in during the course of the battle, each of which can nudge their outcomes up or down a bit more, thus (hopefully) giving the sense of actively influencing events during the assault.
Once again, thanks everyone for the input. Let's see how it goes (next session is this Friday night, Australia time.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi folks,
[First time posting on these forums, so please, be gentle... ]
Here's a little context to help frame the scope of my question. In the next stage of my homebrew campaign, the city my players are in is under threat of being assaulted by a hobgoblin army. As they aren't soldiers (or even residents of the city), they aren't obligated to take part in the defence. However they will requested by the king to help if they so choose. I have other contingencies in place in case they choose to bail.
If they choose to help out for the siege, the plan I currently have in mind is to make preparations into an extended skill challenge. They have several days of world time to help the city in one of three areas: Defences (working with soldiers, barricades, siege weapons etc), Support (preparing medical supplies, creating and transporting ammunition, arranging messengers etc), and Civics (organising the militia and city guard in case of a breach, evacuating civilians, preparing firefighting equipment, etc). Each success they get on their skill challenge will allocate 1pt to one of the three categories and a fail awards no points (for added spice: a Nat20 awards 2pts, a Nat1 subtracts a point). Once the preparation time is done, the attack will commence. There will be encounters during the battle for the PCs to participate in, which will have the chance to add extra points to their preparation categories. Once the battle is over, the number of points assigned to each category will influence the severity of the consequences the city suffers. More points in a category results in better outcomes for the city in that aspect.
This is where we get to the heart of my question. I'm unsure if the overall outcome of the assault should be predetermined ie should the city ultimately survive or fall? Or should the survival of the city be influenced by the distribution of the points plus the outcome of the encounters, and if so, how much?
I have conflicting feelings about both options, and I'm looking for some input into which one people feel would give my players the most agency while acknowledging that they are just 6 7th-level characters in a city of thousands, so their individual contributions could be lost in the throng. In my original idea, I had the outcome as being predetermined, but with more severe consequences for lower points. For example, 11-15 points in the Defences category would result in only 25% losses for the defending army, 6-10 would result in 50% losses and <5 points would result in 75% losses. In all cases, the enemy is still repelled and the city remains standing. I asked this question of my partner very vaguely (as he's also a player in my group), and he didn't seem to be a fan of having a predetermined outcome especially if he knew it was coming. At the same time, determining the overall outcome based on the actions of a small band of individuals seems odd to me: it feels too much like diminishing the actions of NPCs while making the actions of the PCs disproportionately important.
Are there any fellow DMs out there who have encountered similar situations in their games? How did you resolve the issue? I'm happy to rework the points system to allow for more granular outcomes, one or more of which may be the fall of the city.
Don't make the players' actions completely meaningless. If your story needs the city to fall, it's fine to have the city fall even if the players succeed at their skill challenge. As you say, they're six people in a city of thousands. But make them feel like they've won something. Maybe their efforts ensure that more people are able to evacuate before the inevitable fall of the city. If your story needs the city to stand, it's fine to have the defense be successful even if the players don't do anything to help. But make the players feel the consequences of their inaction. Maybe there are more casualties than there would have been, or maybe their favorite pub gets burned down.
The most important thing, especially given what you've said your partner's thoughts were, is to frame the situation such that whatever the players' goal is, that goal is attainable. If you know the city is going to fall, don't let the players feel as though they're trying to save the city. Make sure they know their goal is to evacuate as many people as possible or whatever is appropriate to the situation.
If you're familiar with Star Wars, the battle on Hoth in The Empire Strikes Back is a good example. No one is under any illusion that the Rebels can actually win the battle, so winning is explicitly not the goal. Likewise, if you already know that your city will fall, don't let anyone be under any illusion that it won't. But do give the party a different, actually-achievable goal.
For large scale battles I use Matt Colville's Stronholds and Followers book. Then use that information to run the big battle in between play sessions. That way I, as DM, know the outcome of the overall battle. Which usually should play in the background anyway. And with me knowing the outcome I can narrate during the playsession what is going on.
The PC's can do their own thing and try to complete their own small scale objectives.
1. On a success they can delay the army progress. Giving time for evacuations
2. They can do task force attacks to try and capture important enemy targets
3. Can they find and kill an infiltrating assassin that just killed the city's lord in the midst of chaos
etc
Also check out the 3.5 module Red Hand of Doom. It has a Victory Point system. And objectives along the way that PC's can gather to "win" the overall conflict as well. By doing sabotaging/scouting tasks before the army even arrives at the city. Such as taking out key luitenants, making sure that a strong ally of the enemy withdraws their support... things they can do to weaken the opposition.
I think of an assault like this as a single 'scene,' and the goal of that scene is to answer a question about how the story moves forward.
It's perfectly reasonable to run that scene where the question is 'Does the city fall to the invaders or not?' If you ask it this way, then both 'city falls' and 'city does not fall' should be valid outcomes, and the player's/character's actions should contribute toward the result.
However, that is not the only way you might set the scene.
Imagine the same overall scene, but where the primary question the scene is meant to answer is:
"How many resources does the city spend fighting off the invaders, and will they have enough left for (the winter that is settling in/to pay the King's tithe/to feed their vassal lords)?"
"Who will the players save as they flee the overwhelming invasion force?"
One of those assumes the defense of the city is going to 'succeed' but that there are still consequences for winning more or less well. If the city's stores are depleted, the food reserves destroyed or looted, the scouts and hunters killed, that may make winter hard - economic and humanitarian pressures and concerns that will affect the city, its needs, its economy, potentially even how they view the PCs.
The second assumes the city will fall, but asks what smaller successes the party might succeed in en-route. Can they save the mayor/King/princess/wizard/children? Given a choice between two people to look for and save, who do they pick? Who do they leave behind? How does that change the story, access to information or items, etc?
What I would not do is leave the question as 'Does the city fall or not' and predetermine that answer. If you want to predetermine whether the city falls or not, clearly define the narrative question of the scene in that context, and make sure the stakes of failure and success are clear. That will help you set the scene and mood, present choices and paths.
Funny, I have a similar scenario written featuring a goblin army with the basic premise that the PCs are unlikely to stop the assault but their involvement would reduce the number of innocents killed. I decided against running it at a low level after seeing the effort some players had put into their characters. The scenario was designed with the potential to be deadly.
Even though they couldn't stop all of them, every band of goblins killed meant families of NPCs safely extracted to better fortifications. Burning bridges, blocking passes, killing commanders would help even more. Every fight would help the cause - and wear down the PCs. They would have to rest knowing that the goblins were going to keep on killing. It would be a gamble the players could loose if they tried to save everyone.
I mention all this because resurrection is easier to afford at lv7 and you might be able to try something similar. Give the players a chance to win if they are willing to take the risk. Given the terrain, a group of 6 might be able to nuke a hobgoblin warlord and safely extract (or not).
I like the preparation game you've come up with enough that I want to try it myself.
I just want to second SagaTympana's answer. Its fine if the city is supposed to fall, just make sure the players know that all signs point to that inevitability and that what they are really doing is minimizing losses.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
Thanks everyone for their feedback and ideas. Many of the points that have been raised are ones that I've at least mulled over at some point in the last week.
@ Giblix - thanks for the mention of Matt Colville's book - I'll definitely look into it for future scenarios. As for the points about trying to weaken the oncoming army, I have accounted for that as an alternative path for the PCs to take, should they not want to fight in the actual assault. That is, rather that staying in town and preparing the city, they can venture out and try to weaken the army before it gets too close. I have ideas for them to try any manipulate a red dragon into attacking the army because they're passing through it's (newly established) territory without offering any tribute. I think the results would be entertaining...
@SagaTympana, StatelyRaven and Houligan - thanks for the input. After reading your collective ideas, and thinking it through a bit more, I'm more comfortable sticking with my original idea of narrating the survival of the city. I like statelyraven's summary of the scenario (pardon the paraphrasing): "How many resources will the city expend/lose in the battle, and will they have enough left over for what is to come?" As you have all pointed out, I will ensure that I make it clear to the players that the city will stand at the end of the battle regardless of their actions, but that their efforts will have an effect on the city's overall health when the dust settles. I think setting player expectations up front is the key point in this case.
@SirTrent - thanks for the feedback on the prep work! This is the first time I've tried to create a point system like this, so I don't know if it'll balance out or not. I know other campaigns and systems have used similar systems, which I probably subconsciously copied. Also, last night I planned out a number of possible encounters for the PCs to engage in during the course of the battle, each of which can nudge their outcomes up or down a bit more, thus (hopefully) giving the sense of actively influencing events during the assault.
Once again, thanks everyone for the input. Let's see how it goes (next session is this Friday night, Australia time.)