Mass Combat: Football

[Gigermann]

Before the start of my upcoming campaign, I decided to do a test-run of some of the new rules, specifically in this case, Mass Combat. Rather than throw the PCs in the middle of an arbitrary Braveheart dream-sequence, I decided to work with the characters, all football players, and do a football game. Here's how I did it:

Mass Combat: Football:

Setup:
The PCs had played for Oregon State University in their background, so that's where I started. A little research led me to one of their biggest rivals being Oregon U, in a matchup referred to as "Civil War"—perfect. For the Beavers, there was a PC at the QB, Half-Back, Wide-Receiver, and Place-Kicker positions—all offense. I let the Players collaborate to handle their team's "coach."
Rules as played:

• PCs were the home team, and got a +1 DB for "home-field advantage".
• Considered a pitched battle. I started both teams at -10% Casualties.
• Troop Strength Ratio was (arbitrarily) 1:1—no need for complexity, in this case.
• I did a starting coin-toss. Winner got PB+1.
• PB represented "momentum" in the game.
• Casualties represented "morale and fatigue," and could not actually drop to 0% (for obvious reasons; the game isn't over till it's over). Also, retreat strategies were unavailable.
• 2 mass-combat rounds per game-quarter. (Originally, I wanted to alternate between offense and defense, so the PCs had to "sit out" while their defense took to the field.)
• Risk and Significant Actions were treated as normal.
• Game-score per round was figured at 1 x Margin of Victory (to winner) ±1 x Strategy check results (thereby, even the loser could still get some points in a round). Point total for the round was broken up "logically," and excess carried over to the next round.
• The Strategy check results (nevermind the Margin of Victory) was also how I decided how well the game was being played for the round, and would have determined penalties and such.
• I gave the opposing team a single Misfortune check per round, to determine an overall "injury" situation, meaning a percentage of the casualties would be actual injuries.
• I let the teams recover half of the total casualties taken after half-time.

The Results:
The OU Ducks won the coin-toss, and started with the momentum, but it didn't avail them much. The OSU Beavers opened up with a risky attack strategy, while the OU Ducks, to their eternal shame, went all-out, suffering 50% casualties when losing the first round. The Ducks spent the remainder of the game on full defense. PCs used trick plays (Indirect Attack strategy), and regularly succeeded at their Significant Action attempts; special-teams rules the night. At the end of the first quarter, the score was 31-0 Beavers, and at the end of the first half, the Ducks were beaten down to 0% of their force. I ended the game for RL-time purposes at the end of the third quarter; the score at that point was 60-17 in the PCs' favor. Historically, the 2004 Civil War game being modeled here went similarly. Overall, it took a little longer than I'd like, but that was chiefly because we were all new to the rules (as it progressed, it did get much smoother).

Afterword:

• In a continuing campaign situation, I would've given more thought to the Troop Strength. My best thought on the matter, at this point, is to consider each football "position" as an individual element, and TS would represent not only the starter's abilities, but also "depth" at that position. This would give each side ~22-24 elements (*including kickers). There would be offensive, defensive, and special-teams "superiority"—maybe more detail, if you wanted to go that far. I also would have given the opposing team a "Hero" or two, with the opportunity for some Significant Actions.
• Successes: PB as "momentum" worked well for the "simulation." Significant Actions was fun, with the PCs giving good descriptions of their actions (and pulling them off with alarming regularity).
• Up to the point that I ran the game, it didn't occur to me that Significant Actions and/or Misfortune checks were not "skill-based." I had wanted the skill-check to represent how well they played in that instance. In retrospect, I would have one or the other (or both) be a "dual-purpose" roll, so the SigAct/MisFor target would determine those results, while the same roll's result versus their appropriate skill could determine their performance (which would then be used to determine yardage, penalties, and the like).
• The combination of scoring and casualties made the 2-rounds-per-quarter a bit too much. I'd probably drop it to 1-per-quarter in a future attempt, unless I really wanted to drag it all out, in which case points and casualties would need to be moderated.
• In a more-detailed game, or one where PCs were on offense and defense, I would've gone with the offense/defense swap as I had originally intended—I think it would've worked well.
• Casualties in the game were way too high, and tended to be rather devastating. I think it fit the situation well enough, but it happened too quickly. In retrospect, they probably should've been moderated somewhat—halved maybe?