How to DM a war?

[WilsonUndead]

Hey everyone,
Ive started writing my own campaign, it will be my first time writing one and DMing 5e, with only one adventure of 3e under my belt.
Part of my campaign will have a large battle, and another part will have a full on war (possible for pcs to prevent but more likely to happen).
Now off the top of my head a way to do this without making the pcs fight 1000+ enemies is to first decide the size of the two armies;
The battle im thinking 2 d100+1d10 for each side.
So say i get ( for simplicity sake) 125 elves and 110 hobgoblins.
I include the pcs in minor battles (as if theyre on the battlefield) so maybe they fight d10 hobgoblins at a time.
All the while they are fighting, im rolling d20s for each side simultaneously to represent casualties. This both randomizes who wins and also keeps it easy for everyone.
For the war, i would do the same thing on a larger scale but take separate rolls for warmachines, city walls, all the seige type variables, while the pcs will either be doing the same thpe of thing as the battle, or if they decide, splinter off to defend a breach in the city wall.

Thats just my immediate thoughts. Any ideas or better ways to handle something like this?

Also sorry for the spelling or what have you, im on my phone and this browser doesnt allow autocorrect, and im in no mood to be backtracking 30 times lol
Thanks everyone!

[Madfellow]

Wizards recently released rules for mass combat. You can find them here:

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/unearthed-arcana-when-armies-clash

Good luck. :smallsmile:

[Daishain]

Madfellow got to it before I did.

With the above out of the way, I do want to insert a note of caution. GMing is not a simple role to undertake, and running a war with any real verisimilitude gets complex really quick. I would generally suggest that a new DM try running a published adventure prior to writing their own campaign. Do as you will of course, just be careful how much you bite off at once.

[Ralanr]

Huh...first time I read that. Now I want to fight 10 orcs...damn...

[MrStabby]

Given the whole bounded accuracy thing PCs are more likely to have a big effect in a war through disrupting supply lines, scouting, spying and assassinating key people and destroying war machines.

In this context it may be more important to track supply lines, stores and the support that armies get than to focus on the armies themselves.

[WilsonUndead]

^^
Things like this are the kinds of things that they are going to do that may prevent the war.
Thanks for the replies guys, ill take a look at those riules!

[eastmabl]

If you can keep away from mass combat, I would suggest it - especially if you are a newer DM. It might seem like fun to run mass combat, but it's really just messy.

[Mara]

WotCs mass combat rules seems nice if you wanted some actual depth in your mass combat. I don't. So I'll tell you how I would run it with there printed rules.

The DMG has rules for masses vs a singular. It shows how many expected hits you can have based on the number they need to roll to-hit. So instead of rolling, you just keep track of expected hits and have the mass deal that damage.

All you would need to do now is make a mass a single target-able unit. I would total up the HP of the army and then give it the AC of the highest mode (most repeated). As damage is dealt, it is split to the lowest AC group first (potentially killing off units and changing the AC). I would have the PCs still function as individuals who use their awesome might to tip the scale as they would normally do.

I would just role-play the tactics, maybe using cover rules, flanking, moral, and surprise attacks.

[kaoskonfety]

Disclaimer - I have not reviewed the mass combat rules for 5th yet - work disapproves of the link.

At its heart, in mass combat, we have one question with several answers:
Do the PC's actions affect the military outcome?

To explain in the 3 broad strokes options I typically see for this:

If you are doing a battle as a backdrop "scenery that is happening while the party acts"
- the PC's actions certainly MATTER, but will not change the outcome of the war today (but they may change how big or small a loss/victory).
- you killed the general, dealt with the big bad caster, saved the prince etc.
- But as the local example: the Order of the Stick was not saving Azure City - no reasonable action they had would have changed the outcome (yes some luck and teleporting they could have offed Xykon and Red, been low on resources and still facing a million goblinoids... once the walls were breached, something that was clearly "scripted" - titanium elementals striking before the enemy was "in range" working as a mass combat surprise round more or less - the city was largely doomed)

If you are doing "the PC's as an example of how the fight is going"
- Their victories are reflective of or directly impact the armies victories
- As the PC's charge, behind them thousands rally
- as the party crumples and flees the battle is lost...

If you are doing "the Players ARE the army"
- they are generals, commanders and heroes among the masses
- they are resolving the dice rolling and tactics for their side
- this is really just "another encounter, scaled up and zoomed out"


For the scale of provided I'd be favouring "scenery that is happening while the party acts" or "the PC's as an example of how the fight is going" depending on how "plot relevant" the battles outcome is. I tend to save the PC's are the army for when they are honestly in charge.

Regardless of which you go with come to a conclusion of "what is the result with no PC involvement" - what is fated to happen should the party decide fighting a war is dumb and it is resolved off screen. I'd discourage randomizing victory on a fight of this size - too much writing divergent plots.

[Shining Wrath]

In one of the published 4e adventures they had a situation where the PCs are part of a battle. To summarize, give the PCs a series of encounters. Depending on their success at each encounter, something does or does not happen in the battle as a whole.

If the PCs run through their resources (HP / spells) and need to take a short rest, it takes them out of the battle while the enemy does stuff. They skip an encounter and you take the "maximum enemy success" path.

If the PCs succeed at each encounter they defeat the enemy commander and the battle is total victory for their side. If they are taken out of the battle early the results may be catastrophic for their side.

[WilsonUndead]

I just read those rules and i dont really like them.
I understand this is a big undertaking but there is no rush and i have been a wargamer (warhammer) for years, so this kind if thing isnt completely foreign to me.
I tried working out a playtest today with my original rules that i came up with, with lots of tweaks.
Theres still flaws but it will work really well. Way simpler than the wotc rules.
Thanks for the input everyone!