Mass Combat: 'Misfortunes of War' and generic vs. specific injury

jimminy · 02-18-2012, 04:46 AM

I run a medieval game and we use Mass Combat a fair bit.

As I read it 'Misfortunes of War' successes (failures) are meant to cause 'generic injury'.

I'm not sure I love that as much as I could. In my campaign combat always feels risky, things can get a bit gritty at times, and I like the idea that you could lose a hand or be maimed in some way leading troops from the front, just as much as I like the idea that your good equipment can make you something of a tank who can wade through the front lines inspiring men as you shrug off blows.

Does it seem unreasonable to have a house rule that the damage inflicted from 'Misfortunes of War' is applied randomly to a Hit Location? Of course, then I need a damage type, but usually some form of weapon predominates amongst the enemy, or it would be easy to roll a dice to choose between common types (for example 1-3 is a spear, impaling, 2-4 is crushing from falling off a horse or getting hit by a mace, 5-6 is cutting from a sword or an axe).

That way, sometimes a PC's armour will save them taking most of the damage, and sometimes they might take a hit to the head and be knocked out. Sometimes they might be clutching a bleeding artery or have a broken hand, sometimes a blow might bounce off a helmet.

For my PCs it would mean that they sometimes take very little damage when they get hit, say, on the body or the head, and sometimes take much worse kinds of hits. There is less chance of the damage actually getting through but when it does, it can be very serious. '6 generic damage' can make people shrug and it doesn't feel like something that happens to gritty medieval heroes. A mace caving in a helmet but leaving a big bruise on a cranium which protected the brain with raw skull DR sounds much more dramatic and exciting, even if the same 6 damage did nothing to the character's hit points.

We use the fully detailed hit location tables, including Martial Arts, and when combat happens with chopping, cutting and bashing weapons, blood tends to spray. For my heroes the threat of serious or permanent injury is always very real and evident, but for us that makes it all the more fun.

With specific damage and hit locations, those moments of drama become more personal. Also, real people did get maimed leading medieval armies. Does anyone use a rule like this? Does it seem reasonable? My players kind of like the grittiness so they're not averse; we spent a while debating it and decided to default to 'rules as written' and then get some opinions on the forums. Would it unbalance the Mass Combat rules, counteract the intentions and theory behind 'Misfortunes of War? Would it make the threat too unimportant or too potent?

Gold & Appel Inc · 02-18-2012, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimminy

Does it seem unreasonable to have a house rule that the damage inflicted from 'Misfortunes of War' is applied randomly to a Hit Location?

I use random hit locations, but I keep damage types and DR abstract. In the course of the battle, you got hurt this much, here, is good enough for me. Assuming, of course, that the PC doesn't have completely extraordinary DR by the standards of the enemy's weapons and can't be hurt, period (eg: supers), in which case I'm more inclined to just make up a bad result that doesn't involve injury.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimminy

(for example 1-3 is a spear, impaling, 2-4 is crushing from falling off a horse or getting hit by a mace, 5-6 is cutting from a sword or an axe).

Might wanna check the math there. ;]

Lamech · 02-18-2012, 10:00 AM

If I was running it I would make a "misfortune of war" roll simply means that you do a "zoom in" where the PC is in danger. Your squad gets ambushed, the enemy charge hits dead on your spot ect. That keeps away from impersonal "the PC dies due to bad dice roll" results.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

Might wanna check the math there. ;]

They fall off a horse on to a spear? Maybe the charge is stopped by a spear wall and you get thrown from the horse.

Kallatari · 02-19-2012, 11:17 PM

In my games, the rule I have is that, on an exact success on the Misfortunes of War roll, the character suffers the damage of the most common weapon used by the enemy (e.g., a sword swing, or a spear) on a randomly rolled hit location. For every 2 points in the margin of success of the Misfortunes of War roll, he takes an additional similar hit. If the roll is a critical, then the first blow is either from a more powerful attack feasible on the field (e.g., a ballista shot, an ogre wielding a battle axe, etc.) or it uses the critical hit table for effects. In all cases, DR applies normally.

It seems to work fine, and none of my players complained.

jimminy · 02-19-2012, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

Might wanna check the math there. ;]

Haha, yeah. Proofreading ... Probably would have helped me there ...

But cool. So the consensus seems to be a house rule along those lines doesn't go against 'the spirit of' the original rule. No-one seems to feel that there's not some background balance issue to the rule I'm missing that would be upset by adding locations and damage type.

Kallatari, I like your system, and Lamech, yes, fall off the horse onto a spear, um ... Good, yes, let's say I meant that. Very good of you to point out my intention there. Carry on.

Anyway. Five good responses there. Wait, I mean ...

02-18-2012, 04:46 AM	#1
jimminy Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Adelaide, Australia	Mass Combat: 'Misfortunes of War' and generic vs. specific injury I run a medieval game and we use Mass Combat a fair bit. As I read it 'Misfortunes of War' successes (failures) are meant to cause 'generic injury'. I'm not sure I love that as much as I could. In my campaign combat always feels risky, things can get a bit gritty at times, and I like the idea that you could lose a hand or be maimed in some way leading troops from the front, just as much as I like the idea that your good equipment can make you something of a tank who can wade through the front lines inspiring men as you shrug off blows. Does it seem unreasonable to have a house rule that the damage inflicted from 'Misfortunes of War' is applied randomly to a Hit Location? Of course, then I need a damage type, but usually some form of weapon predominates amongst the enemy, or it would be easy to roll a dice to choose between common types (for example 1-3 is a spear, impaling, 2-4 is crushing from falling off a horse or getting hit by a mace, 5-6 is cutting from a sword or an axe). That way, sometimes a PC's armour will save them taking most of the damage, and sometimes they might take a hit to the head and be knocked out. Sometimes they might be clutching a bleeding artery or have a broken hand, sometimes a blow might bounce off a helmet. For my PCs it would mean that they sometimes take very little damage when they get hit, say, on the body or the head, and sometimes take much worse kinds of hits. There is less chance of the damage actually getting through but when it does, it can be very serious. '6 generic damage' can make people shrug and it doesn't feel like something that happens to gritty medieval heroes. A mace caving in a helmet but leaving a big bruise on a cranium which protected the brain with raw skull DR sounds much more dramatic and exciting, even if the same 6 damage did nothing to the character's hit points. We use the fully detailed hit location tables, including Martial Arts, and when combat happens with chopping, cutting and bashing weapons, blood tends to spray. For my heroes the threat of serious or permanent injury is always very real and evident, but for us that makes it all the more fun. With specific damage and hit locations, those moments of drama become more personal. Also, real people did get maimed leading medieval armies. Does anyone use a rule like this? Does it seem reasonable? My players kind of like the grittiness so they're not averse; we spent a while debating it and decided to default to 'rules as written' and then get some opinions on the forums. Would it unbalance the Mass Combat rules, counteract the intentions and theory behind 'Misfortunes of War? Would it make the threat too unimportant or too potent? __________________ I have a role-playing (loosely) themed radio show 'The Role-Playing Hour'. Tune in online and listen! Audio clips (some are a little blue, I warn) here and episodes here!

02-19-2012, 11:17 PM	#4
Kallatari Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Ottawa, Canada	Re: Mass Combat: 'Misfortunes of War' and generic vs. specific injury In my games, the rule I have is that, on an exact success on the Misfortunes of War roll, the character suffers the damage of the most common weapon used by the enemy (e.g., a sword swing, or a spear) on a randomly rolled hit location. For every 2 points in the margin of success of the Misfortunes of War roll, he takes an additional similar hit. If the roll is a critical, then the first blow is either from a more powerful attack feasible on the field (e.g., a ballista shot, an ogre wielding a battle axe, etc.) or it uses the critical hit table for effects. In all cases, DR applies normally. It seems to work fine, and none of my players complained.