Need some rules helps and suggestions (War, Player's turn, etc.)

Okay, finally going to get to run the campaign I’ve worked on, which will culminated in the Winter War. Now, forgetting that I’m not sure how some of the stuff happened in the world during that time I’m curious if anyone has experience running a War conflict.

Any suggestions or insight would be welcome, I’m personally having trouble wrapping my head around how the mechanic works at that scale. I’m also curious, and this isn’t a mechanics thing, how people think the whole destruction of the Darkheather happened and how the weasels were pushed out of them. (David, any suggestions? nudge nudge wink wink)

Also, a few questions about the player’s turn. So, say there’s still some mission stuff left over and the Patrol leader wants to use his check to finish it. Let’s say it’s a pathfinding mission, would the active player be the one making the check, even if they’re not the group’s pathfinder?

The player making the check makes the roll. The patrol leader can use a check to roll persuader to convince the pathfinder to spend the check if he doesn’t want to.

Edit: For the war conflict you should at first think about if you want to have

Conflict = one battle
Conflict = the whole war and each exchange is a battle or one move

Yes, but it’s also easy to arrange the order of play so the pathfinder gets to complete the mission.

My intent is for the PCs to be a part of the defense of Walnutpeck, so the conflict will be that one battle with possibly more battles later.

Luke: Easy how so? If their goal doesn’t include the mission I’d think it would be pretty tough.

The player with the Pathfinder skill spends a check to test Pathfinder to complete the mission. The patrol helps. The GM factors the obstacle.

And if the player does not have a check, another player can give him one.

Well yes, I realize that’;s how the system works, and I realize there’s an element of buying into the “game” of this all but that comes across as super meta to me. I guess it’s all going to come down to my players.

So anyways… War, huh, good god yall, has anyone run it?

Checks are meta.

I fully understand that but saying “Even though my goal is to complete the mission I will have the player whose goal isn’t to complete the mission make the checks for it because they’re the one with pathfinder.” to me is Meta to the extreme and verging on mechanics over character/story. But as I said, I will have to see how it works out with my players. This may end up not being an issue.

I find that when folks have to decide whether to help one another, even though it doesn’t align with there goals, it’s an interesting RP opportunity, rather than sacrificing the story.

i have run one siege of a town. essentially each round was a attack from the invaders (rats in my case).

so for the defenders, an attack would be essentially be a counterattack, archers, or a stoic defence of the ramparts. feinting is easy, its a bluff of some kind so letting the enemy in, closing the gates and surrounding them. maneouvering is clever placement of troops, or sending out skirmishers to cut off supply lines. (little tip - look at the weapons used for wars. how could they be disrupted?) defence is a tricky one, because if youre defending against a siege youre techinically always on the defense. you could simply call this ‘weathering the storm’, or reinforcing with your reserves.

for my siege in particular, the scale was quite small. (think rorkes drift small) and so i allowed the players to defend with healer, and attack with fighter (maybe at -2D, i forget now) to represent leading from the front. on a grander scale, even a great hero can make a limited difference by martial prowess alone. i may also have allowed orator for an action if appropriate.
i did all this so that the players without militarist/administrator still had stuff they could do, but at an appropriately limited impact.
they key here is making sure the players know what their actions represent. hopefully then they will pick actions/descriptions that fit in, and dont spoil the flow of the battle.

have each action have a tangible result - defending a wall? failure results in the loss of the wall. use your next action to retake it. this way persistent failure will result in the players having a real feeling of what their disposition means. for the attackers it is essentially how many more troops you can throw into the battle. this way you can see a defence as the evacuation of civilians, the construction of barricades, and so on.

make sure players narrate their weapons. if they want their +!S to defend, they have to tell you how they are getting it. the mechanics should inspire narrative, not merely a number.

i can also recommend looking up some battles on wikipedia, which is pretty good for an overview. you can see there the sort of interplay between generals, and imagine what sort of action (AFDM) they might be. (example, charge of the light brigade - feint vs attack)

lastly, basic prep stuff. have a map of walnutpeck. have an idea of how large the forces involved are, and the quality of the defences. make sure the weasels have plans and strategies to make them seem like a real enemy. if the mice are doomed to fail, make sure their conflict goal is something fatally dramatic, like ‘escape with as many mice as possible’, or hold back the attack long enough to allow an escape’, or possibly just ‘survive til dawn’ (night fights with fog are the scariest). even if overall failure is inevitable, give the players a shot at glory, perhaps a final cavalry charge into the weasel ranks to take on the Overlord 1 on 1?