I can take it or leave it. I think we have plenty enough for a party, but one more wouldn't ruin anything.
What Storm Dragon said.
So, I'm not 100% sure at the moment whether we should consider our mission scuffed at this point. It feels like we're already out of the bounds of what we're meant to do (stay incognito, set up radio tower, monitor situation) with how we've had direct conflict with Coalition forces twice now. They seems to have a complete stranglehold on the area at the moment, and I think turning guerilla is beyond the scope of our mission ATM.
Seems like a reasonable thing to discuss in-game. Bring it back to the PC's (officers and NCO's), and have them hash out the next stwp in character.
Hey folks, I'll post tomorrow. Today has been a hectic day. I hope you're all well.
DM SBM - there are so many players, I've lost track - which PC is the captain? Thanks!
Arsenio Deloso, but I was talking about the captain of the enemy team, the sniper. He is a Psi-Stalker.
Can I get a link to where you explained battle rolls before? I think that was the part of the campaign I missed because I stopped getting notifications for a while and thought the game had died.
I believe I started explaining it right around here:
I'd just like to point out that being penalized for a Success (taking Fatigue) seems contradictory to SW's usual philosophy.
Also, this rule can quickly spiral us into ineffectiveness, since with a -1 to our next roll, that reduces our chances of getting the Raise we need to avoid another point of Fatigue, as well as the chance of getting any Success at all.
For example, with a d8+Wild die, the initial chance of getting just a Success is 81%. The chance of getting the Raise we need to avoid Fatigue is only 25%.
Assuming a regular Success, the chance of getting a Success on our second roll is 67%, and the chance of a Raise is 22%.
On the third roll, the chance of Success is 48%, and the chance of a Raise is 18%.
I want to say that there are ways to lose it, such as skipping a round of battle. Battle rounds are meant to simulate minutes of combat, rather than the quick seconds of it. It can be exhausting.
Of course, I'm not looking at the book so I'm not exactly sure how they did it with SWADE.
I'll have my post up tomorrow. Very long day today.
The consequences of having players make rolls for mass combat is that they're adding bonuses to their side's roll, while on the NPC side, they only get situational bonuses.
So to be fair and balanced (say, a 75% chance of the PC's winning), the GM must set up his side of the combat with a number of tokens that's higher than the PC's side, but not too high, so the PC's don't wipe the other side out quickly. This means having more people on the NPC side, like SBM did.
Then the NPC side should have a higher situational bonus than the PC's before the PC's make their rolls, again so the PC's don't just wipe the other side out.
But while I know math and statistics very well, I'd *hate* to have to come up with such numbers! Especially considering that the way the rules are written, the PC's contribution will almost certainly drop every round (because of Fatigue and Wounds).
Of course, we could spend Bennies to re-roll to try and get a Raise, but that would only probably work for a couple of rounds before we'd be out.
Also, the rules say nothing about this point for Mass Battles : if a PC takes 4 Wounds (4 Failures), is he Incapacitated? If he takes 3 Fatigue (3 Successes), is he exhausted? Then his player can no longer contribute anything to the combat.
All good points brought up, and I have considered having a ‘side battle’ for the PCs to specifically affect the outcome of the battle rather than an abstract role and/or roll. SWADE says the default length of time for a battle round is two hours, which is why to me, the little bit of fatigue makes sense. Yes, if you become incapacitated from wounds or fatigue, you are out until healed, which can happen instead of participating in a battle round. It’s basically about resource management. Secondly, and this part I missed, the maximum the team can actually give is +4, just as the rules for Supporting an Action state, as Mass Battles is simply an extended Support. So in that sense, Deloso would only have +4 from the team, plus all the circumstantial bonuses. I could run it as a regular combat, but there would be a lot of bad guys for you to put down, not to mention the two walkers. That and you do have a few other soldiers to help with you fight, i.e. to command. Not only that, I haven’t had much time to put up a decent map for you guys to fight it out on, thus the more descriptive fights. Being a teacher tends to steal a lot of your time.
@Jingu- also, I didn’t intend to gloss over your response and we can certainly do that, so then each team would have something to do other than roll and help the leader. That is kind of what I did for the fight when you arrived, but as there were so many named characters, I wanted you to get to know them in combat first. The only thing I didn’t do for that was the Battle roll. Another way to get through it quickly would be separate teams with Dramatic Tasks and your successes and failures would go towards the leader’s Battle roll as well.
DM SBM - I posted my thoughts on Mass Battles on the Savage World Discussion board, and one very experienced player says that he allow Bennies to be spent *only* for Mass Battles to Soak Fatigue. What do you think of that?
I can't recall ever feeling more disengaged from what is happening in a game. There is no strategy, no banter, no heroics, just dice rolling. At this point I think I would rather you just roll all the dice and sum up what happened in the battle so we can get back to actually playing. After that, hopefully we cam avoid ever using the mass Combat rules again, or at least come up with ways to make it interesting.
Hmm… I can see that being a thing, but I wasn’t aware that you could soak Fatigue, only Wounds. That and as I mentioned, you do have a medic in the platoon. Still, the idea is sound, so I will allow it as a cinematic dig deep kind of thing.
I can't recall ever feeling more disengaged from what is happening in a game. There is no strategy, no banter, no heroics, just dice rolling. At this point I think I would rather you just roll all the dice and sum up what happened in the battle so we can get back to actually playing. After that, hopefully we cam avoid ever using the mass Combat rules again, or at least come up with ways to make it interesting.
Yeah, I kinda agree.
I think it's a bad sign when a battle can be resolved just by the GM rolling for both sides until one side randomly becomes the winner. Our input doesn't really matter here.
Just to be clear, that was a house-rule.
Regarding the lack of banter, it's up to us to provide it. Instead of posting "I'm making a Fighting roll", say "<my PC> wades into the oncoming hordes, swinging his sword for all that it's worth". This is *all* theater of the mind, afterall.
Technically, *all* combats *could* be resolved by the GM rolling for both sides. How is this any different?
Because in a regular combat, our tactics actually matter. There are choices to make. I could throw a spell, double move, attack normally, attack repeatedly, try to make some ballsy multiaction play, retreat, etc.
Even if the Gm rolled all of the relevant die for that...I'd still be pretty engaged, because I have some kind of input.
Here, I do not. The battle could be resolved with a literal coin flip and I would be just as invested, because as far as I can tell there's nothing I can do to change the outcome except hope the dice come up our way.
Because in a regular combat, our tactics actually matter. There are choices to make. I could throw a spell, double move, attack normally, attack repeatedly, try to make some ballsy multiaction play, retreat, etc.
Even if the Gm rolled all of the relevant die for that...I'd still be pretty engaged, because I have some kind of input.
Here, I do not. The battle could be resolved with a literal coin flip and I would be just as invested, because as far as I can tell there's nothing I can do to change the outcome except hope the dice come up our way.
Yup. This.
These are all fair points and I will weigh in on them. Firstly, as Burgurk said, a lot of the banter that happens is on the part of the players as well as the GM to provide. In Mass Battles, giving orders or yelling out battle cries or any of that stuff is covered by the player adding that to their post. Honestly, with each Battle Roll, you can see the results in the rules and describe how it happens based on your roll. Then all Deloso would have to do is add up his bonuses and go from there. My only input would be what the bad guys were doing and rolling.
I chose mass battles for this encounter because you have twenty plus troops and a battle rig against their 40 plus two walkers. You already know that this is a logistical nightmare for any GM as well as the players. One thing that I have noticed with trying to have all of you have extras is that no one uses them really. I try to throw in some role playing to remind everyone that they are there, but it seems to me that they are more of a hindrance than a help. I can have them taken out of the game if you feel that you guys can handle things without them. You are all super powered basically.
As for the next combat, here is what I propose. If we have the rest of the legionnaires be reassigned, we can change your combats to be the ‘usual’ players v. Bad guys. If you want to continue to keep the legionnaires so you can duke it out with the CS and whoever else you go up against, we can run smaller battles that will add or subtract to the final battle roll based on the outcome. You can each take your squads and go do a small mission, whatever that may be, and it will determine how the overall battle goes. The Mass Battles rules were meant to simulate all that, but we can parse it out into small skirmishes.
Finally, in all candor, I myself have let this game lapse some, and I know that. I am probably one of the most notorious for running slow games on boards and for two major reasons. One, I want my posts that I do make to be of decent quality. I want my players to feel that some effort has gone into my work as a GM. Secondly, time. I am a teacher and as such, I have little free time as it is, and since these are games, I want them to feel like an escape, not another form of work. I have on more than one occasion thought of dropping this one and focusing on my Pathfinder one due to less activity. At one point I had considered starting up a new DnD5e (or Bunkers and Badasses or GIJoe or Conan or whatever), but I have to keep in mind that I only have so much time to spend on it. The only reason I have time to type all this out is because it is Spring Break for me.
I have gotten used to people leaving my games because of the slowness, and other reasons, and I truly understand them. I am stubborn however, and I will keep running a game, even if only one person stays. Hells, I’ll run myself a la IronSworn if I have to. I am open to suggestions, as always. I am not a perfect GM. Even after thirty plus years and countless game systems, I still have much to learn. I hope we can come to an agreement on how to work this next time and continue on with our story.
I don't mind the slowness, or even having the legionnaires around...but I, at least, am not really interested in micromanaging them. I'm not a big fan of RTS games, or even TBS games for that matter. Hell, when it comes to RPGs I don't usually like having an Animal Companion or Familiar either. I only like having direct control over my one character.
Typically my conception of an RPG party with a large "camp" is just that: an RPG party. SO while we may have 30 followers, we're not really participating in mass combats. We are a small group of specialists that need to flit from crisis point to crisis point and solve "set pieces" in a larger battle.
To my mind, I don't really care what happens to the legionnaires. Not in a "IDK lol they're just NPCs sense" but like...I don't really care if it's played out, you know? I'm fine with you just having the larger battle going on in the background and deciding what happens to our followers based on what seems the most dramatic.
I feel like that would also be less work (and more fun?) for you, than kludging some mass combat rules together (a feat that I don't think ANY TRPG has ever achieved in a satisfying way).
I don't mind the slowness, either. If someone wants to GM a Savage Worlds game (the only kind I play anymore), I'll give them lots of latitude. Any game is better than no game...
In theory, having the PC do smaller battles to add bonuses to the mass battle sounds good, but that would slow the mass combat itself WAY down.
I'm sure you thought that a combat this big would be epic, but for all the reasons others have brought up, the way the rules go don't provide much engagement for the players.
I'm just going to throw this out there : what if we "reset" to before the battle started, and have the CS send a smaller crew out to check us out? If you want to keep our NPC's, you could run them, or we could wave a magic wand and have most of them disappear. I have no problem running one NPC, myself.
I don't mind a slow game either. You have my respect for keeping this game going for so long; I myself couldn't do it, and my game lapsed.
Rather than killing off what we've done, I think we should finish out the mass battle, but I think you should fast forward through it (either by handwaving or just rolling all the dice for us), and have us pick up at the end of this fight.
In the future, where the NPC's are concerned, I would suggest introducing another NPC (or DMPC) to act as the Commander of squad B. We, being the superpowered specialists, would be the point of the spear, and squad B would be the support and occupation force. Strike Team takes out the heavy hitters, Support Team moves in to mop up and dig in.
I am new to Savage worlds. I am enjoying the game, I don't have a strong stand on the Mass Battle, I was looking at it as an opportunity to learn a new system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So going over this, it seems that most are in favor of having the main force simply be background noise and the rest of you applying your unique skills to small unit battles for big combats. I can certainly do that. Each of your smaller actions can affect the final outcome of the battle. For now, we’ll finish up this round and then I will go ahead and roll out the rest of it, with your bonuses and such added in. Then from now on, we will do the small skirmish part of the larger battle thing. Sound good?
Sounds good.
Sorry for my own quietness; this weekend has been crazy and my spoons have been everywhere. I think that, if we were at a table, we could hear the results of the battle and then altogether come up with adaptions to our fight to change the modifiers and all that jazz. Fast, Fun, & Furious is the key tenets of Savage Worlds but Play by Post can slow things down quite a bit and it takes longer to agree on a solid plan before the next roll can be made.
For the record, you're doing great DM SBM! I've run Rifts a little before and to be handling us and giving us a whole slew of soldiers is a lot going on. I definitely feel like we should have a mix of missions where we have moments like this; leading soldiers, logistics, and stuff like that, while having moments when it is just the specialists. Like you said, we're basically post-post-apocalyptic superheroes. Just us on our own can cause a lot of problems and may let us travel a little more quietly when doing outreach missions and stuff.
Thanks for your support Sun Li, I appreciate it. I am going to try to mix things up a bit again, as there have been times when it is just the team that can get things done while the Extras go and guard something.
Yeah, it's looking like this is a failed mission. We can't survive another onslaught like that.
What vehicles are still operational?
Arsenio - please check your PM...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just so everyone is aware, my family got hit hard with Covid this weekend. I was the last to get it and I’m in the middle of fighting it off. Suffice to say that i will try to post as i can, but even this is taking up what energy i have.
Sorry to hear that. Hang in there!
Thanks! I’m through the hardest part I think, so now it’s just working on getting back to 100%.
I'll post my scouting mission shortly. One of the things I was trying to figure out was my options. I'd originally taken Telemechanics with the idea I could telepathically hack machines in order to help bypass security and such. It threw a monkey wrench into my plans when DmSBM said I couldn't use it that way and still had to find a way to interface with the machine. I'd been meaning to post this a question on the rules forum forever, but had lost my password, etc, etc. Finally posted and got an answer, and it looks like it does work the way I had envisioned. I can't Mind Control a machine, but I can attempt to hack it and alter programming, using Mind Link as the interface.
Reference below.
In the long run, this may give me a lot more options for how to sabotage the walkers. Deregulated their reactors, disable energy conservation programs so they run out of juice, reverse the air flow on the heat sinks, enable Friendly Fire protection on all our vehicles, and so on. Options are limitless. I could also try to sift their files and get more Intel on their mission here.
After reading SKR’s response and rereading what I had read about it, I can see where the confusion came in. So in essence, like it says, you can use Mind Link to get access to the machine, but actually getting to do anything requires a second skill roll of Hacking. This runs differently than Mind Control would, of course. Either way, it certainly opens a few more options for you.
Your post threw me way off because I was wondering when SKR started to work for PEG instead of Monte Cook. I think you meant to type SOR. =p
You’re right, should have been SOR. Too many Acronyms for names on the brain.
Sorry Guys, Had a bit of Life Boil Over. I think It is better, Looks Like I missed a lot I'll catch up
Just realized Rigor/Josiah hasn't posted in a couple of months. Hope he's doing all right.
Just realized Rigor/Josiah hasn't posted in a couple of months. Hope he's doing all right.
He has. He's Jingμ's player as well.
Ya, Josiah is technically Jingu's sidekick, so I tend to post less with him unless something concerns him directly. Presently just mulling over what to do in the spider walkers engine room...
As much as I was enjoying this one, I feel as if many of the players no longer have an interest in playing or at least interjecting with some RP while waiting for someone else’s response to situations I have put forth. I am now on Summer Break and I was hoping to invest more time and energy into this to help keep it going, despite the lack of activity, but sometimes, one just has to cut their losses. That said, I am closing this game down at the end of the week, barring a sudden jump in activity. My games are notoriously slow and for good reason. I understand the concept of real life all too well and I wanted to keep something “on the shelf” for people to come back to when they could. However, after two weeks of basically nothing, I think its time to put this one into the history books.
Thank you to all of you for joining me on this journey into Savage Rifts. I have truly enjoyed running it, even with the bumps and bruises along the way. I have learned a lot about the system and how it plays out in PbP. I am very much loving the system and other than DnD 5e, it’s become my favorite so far, 2d20 being a close third. Again, I appreciate all of you for staying with me this long. It’s been a good run.
Thank you for running, DM SBM. I appreciate the effort and the grand planning that went into this. I look forward to what you run when/if you run something again!
Savage Worlds is definitely a contender for my favorite system, though I'm still not completely sure how I feel about RIFTS. I'll need to run my own game using it at some point.
What's 2d20?
If I run a new one at some point, I'll keep you guys in mind. Thanks!
2d20 is Modiphius' base system. They use it for a lot of IPs, like Conan, Fallout, Dune and Star Trek. It takes a bit of getting used to, like having to roll low instead of high, but once you get it, it's pretty fast flowing. They have a lot of free quick start guides on Drivethrurpg if you want to check it out.
I totally get it, and I was just about to ask what everyone else was up to. My original intent with the side mission was not to hold things up, but it seemed like I was the only one doing anything. Lately I got distracted as I'm prepping for an irl 5e game, which I've never DM'd before, so I got a little down the rabbit hole, and lost track of how long it had been between posts. Sorry about that.
This has been a good game, and I've enjoyed it. I like Rifts in general, as it's a good kitchen sink kind of concept, even if anything to do with Kevin Siembieda does have a bit of his stink on it. Savage Rifts did a good job of playing with the good ideas, and ditching some of the dead weight.
I liked the frameworks, and think they were a good addition. I vastly prefer point based systems to level based vancian systems, but Savage Worlds is a good hybrid. The frameworks added some nice meat to the otherwise bare bones system. I tried playing in a basic Savage Worlds fantasy game a while back, and it was surprisingly crappy. Savage Worlds still needs a little something, Powers, special abilities, frameworks, or what have you to make it snap. Rifts did that well.
I am still up for this game if it picks up, but if it is dead, I enjoyed the ride. Thank you DM ShadowBloodmoon for guiding us through it.