Post by ripx187 on Apr 6, 2017 16:46:02 GMT -5
Alright, I'm working on a new article, and I think that I am making some headway, but I thought that I would throw some ideas at you folks and get some of your thoughts.
When I thought of a wargame, it always was that image of players standing around a large table pushing counters or miniatures around, either on a board or on an elaborate set which was created just for this purpose. It dawns on me that this image is just something that I believed was always going on, but wasn't. Not until reading "Playing at the World" did I know that the players of some wargames never saw the board, they just wrote down their orders based off of the information that the referee gave to them. Only the referee could see the board. This sounds like D&D! This also sounds very manageable and something that is (A.) Cheaper, and (B.) a lot less intimidating and a lot less work.
Was it always the games intention that player controlled armies were to be run this way? They were set dressing, protecting the player's treasure and managing his affairs, but could be used in the field by issuing short and exact commands. A player with a small army of followers could have them fan out over an area to look for places of interest, or they could clear the way for the party, basically just color or to make the game less tedious, instead of you having to search miles of woods looking for a bandits hideout, you could have them do it.
Their purpose was not just limited to mass combat scenarios, in fact, those were probably avoided, but when they did happen in a military style campaign, the board could stay in the imaginations of the participants, yes?
Through years of playing the game, I have learned that high-level characters can take on small to medium sized armies if they are aware of the morale system and how to use it to their advantage. A 12th level party probably doesn't really need an army, not if they know how to make the right cuts in the right places. If we transfer this directly over to the characters issuing orders to their troops, use them to force morale checks on the enemy, one doesn't actually need a sand-table or any playing surface at all. Large battles can play themselves out in our heads. This is an epiphany to me!
For the life of me I couldn't figure this out, I was stuck with the table-top idea. War games are primarily a 1-on-1 game, or team games where each side controls an army; I couldn't figure out how to incorporate that into a fair and exciting D&D game. As DM, I don't think that I can beat a team of players working together, I doubt that I can even challenge them.
Is this how it was done? Am I getting anywhere with this idea? How much visual strategy was used in the game? Am I over-simplifying things?
These ideas have stumped myself and other DMs that I have talked too for years.
When I thought of a wargame, it always was that image of players standing around a large table pushing counters or miniatures around, either on a board or on an elaborate set which was created just for this purpose. It dawns on me that this image is just something that I believed was always going on, but wasn't. Not until reading "Playing at the World" did I know that the players of some wargames never saw the board, they just wrote down their orders based off of the information that the referee gave to them. Only the referee could see the board. This sounds like D&D! This also sounds very manageable and something that is (A.) Cheaper, and (B.) a lot less intimidating and a lot less work.
Was it always the games intention that player controlled armies were to be run this way? They were set dressing, protecting the player's treasure and managing his affairs, but could be used in the field by issuing short and exact commands. A player with a small army of followers could have them fan out over an area to look for places of interest, or they could clear the way for the party, basically just color or to make the game less tedious, instead of you having to search miles of woods looking for a bandits hideout, you could have them do it.
Their purpose was not just limited to mass combat scenarios, in fact, those were probably avoided, but when they did happen in a military style campaign, the board could stay in the imaginations of the participants, yes?
Through years of playing the game, I have learned that high-level characters can take on small to medium sized armies if they are aware of the morale system and how to use it to their advantage. A 12th level party probably doesn't really need an army, not if they know how to make the right cuts in the right places. If we transfer this directly over to the characters issuing orders to their troops, use them to force morale checks on the enemy, one doesn't actually need a sand-table or any playing surface at all. Large battles can play themselves out in our heads. This is an epiphany to me!
For the life of me I couldn't figure this out, I was stuck with the table-top idea. War games are primarily a 1-on-1 game, or team games where each side controls an army; I couldn't figure out how to incorporate that into a fair and exciting D&D game. As DM, I don't think that I can beat a team of players working together, I doubt that I can even challenge them.
Is this how it was done? Am I getting anywhere with this idea? How much visual strategy was used in the game? Am I over-simplifying things?
These ideas have stumped myself and other DMs that I have talked too for years.
