(And yes, the system gets pretty damn screwy when you're looking at a size 5 army with perfect morale.)

This conflation of losses from morale and losses from damage was a massive problem with the old mass combat system as well as it made it impossible to properly handle cases which the game must handle (zombies, killbots, AoE magical artillery and other similar effects), so it is highly amusing that the bloody system still has this issue.
 
Also, a I wouldn't say that a perfectly responsive stable platform that doesn't have a control rating and travels at one's direction is a case of bad controllability. To the contrary, it's perfect for someone who didn't even bother to invest in Ride.
I should have been more specific. Circus Skiff is overpowered compared to other spells of its level. It's far too fast for its maneuverability. In 1e and 3e it's far slower, 30 mph or less.

45 yards per tick is good combat manoeuvrability, and I'm having trouble finding how to match it with a single or even with a couple of Charms by non-sorcery. The one idea I've had so far is to get a Peregrine Falcon (very much preferably a Familiar) and use Graceful Crane Stance to make it possible for me to balance on its back without hurting the little bird. And even then I would get something like 30 yards/tick of horizontal flight, and only beat the sorceror's velocity when diving.
While I dislike that approach, that could work. Master Horseman's Techniques makes it inexhaustible. Don't forget the Ride charms that allow you to use reflexive and supplemental charms on your mount.

If you really want speed, just learn Flashing Thunderbolt Steed to travel at (mount's stamina * 10) mph. A Strix or a Fogshark will fly at 80 mph. But why take those when you could ride a giant squid at 100 mph, a yeddim at 110 mph, or a tyrant lizard at 120 mph?
 
While I dislike that approach, that could work. Master Horseman's Techniques makes it inexhaustible. Don't forget the Ride charms that allow you to use reflexive and supplemental charms on your mount.

If you really want speed, just learn Flashing Thunderbolt Steed to travel at (mount's stamina * 10) mph. A Strix or a Fogshark will fly at 80 mph. But why take those when you could ride a giant squid at 100 mph, a yeddim at 110 mph, or a tyrant lizard at 120 mph?
Ride gets some good options for matching something like Cirrus Skiff, but they take a lot more xp than the sorcerer (and an appropriate concept; my Master Horseman isn't going to want to get a giant mount that can ferry the party around). The sorcerer just needs to spend a spell's worth and then can go off to something else.
 
This conflation of losses from morale and losses from damage was a massive problem with the old mass combat system as well as it made it impossible to properly handle cases which the game must handle (zombies, killbots, AoE magical artillery and other similar effects), so it is highly amusing that the bloody system still has this issue.
Wouldn't you just simulate that with more health/better soak in the zombies/killbots? Or specific exceptions to certain abilities ("Death orbs kill all non-magical creatures within radius x")? The fact that they apparently haven't done that is bad, but it's not like the current method can't work.
 
Wouldn't you just simulate that with more health/better soak in the zombies/killbots? Or specific exceptions to certain abilities ("Death orbs kill all non-magical creatures within radius x")? The fact that they apparently haven't done that is bad, but it's not like the current method can't work.

No, because for the conflation to work, the core working assumption is that all entities participating in any given mass combat are people: sapient creatures who care about things like morale, who can break and be routed, etc. This is a fine core assumption if you're building a system for a game about, let's say, Ancient Rome, where everything you're going to fight with a bunch of legionaries can fit into the circle labeled "other humans", so core mechanics assuming that everyone is a human and will react accordingly are fine.

This game, on the other hand, has armies of zombies, murderbots, zergling demon spiders, mind-controlled fearless fanatics and other shit in it which does not adhere to the core assumption: morale is not a part of every combat by definition, so the core functionality needs to work without morale, and effects of morale apply only when actually applicable. Doing it the other way around results only in a patchwork which isn't ideal, with every single instance of morale/damage conflation running into "these things we're fighting don't fit into the core assumption" and requiring an explicit exemption. This is much messier and requires much more work than, for example, a morale subsystem layer over the basic function of damage.

The "let's treat big blobs of lesser entities as a single stronger entity" core assumption has a similar problem: it only works if you don't have weirdo magic powers that a single entity can use on other single entities that makes zero sense whatsoever vs an abstracted unit-blob, and if you insist on using that as a core assumption, every single such magic power is going to need an exception. Or this global copout "um shit let's just force it on the GM to fiat adjudicate, not our problem!" stupidity, I suppose.
 
Last edited:
Ride gets some good options for matching something like Cirrus Skiff
The problem with Cirrus Skiff is relative to spells like Stormwind Rider and Conjure the Azure Chariot, not Solar Ride. It's essentially strictly superior to the former.

but they take a lot more xp than the sorcerer (and an appropriate concept; my Master Horseman isn't going to want to get a giant mount that can ferry the party around). The sorcerer just needs to spend a spell's worth and then can go off to something else.
They don't really need to spend more. All they need is a Strix(giant owl), a Ride Excellency, and Flashing Thunderbolt Steed, and they have an obscenely stealthy mount that can fly at 80 mph. That's just 1-2 charm purchases.

If that's not enough, there's plenty more they can buy. Wind-Racing Essence infusion will raise its speed to 120 mph. Trained with Bestial Traits Technique it will go 150 mph and have substantially better stats overall. Making it their familiar using the alternate rules, it will even gain appropriate spirit charms.

Or, as I just noticed, they could just get a griffon. Griffons have awesome stats and can fly at 100mph, no extra charms needed.
 
Last edited:
Actually, the system tries to handle the issue of battlegroups with perfect morale having, well, perfect morale. Admittedly, it does so by adding only a +3 modifier to the battlegroup's Magnitude.

I think it'd work a lot better (and more sanely) with a numbered value for morale (I know, more to keep track of) that is static but limits the amount of Magnitude damage a given attack can do. It'd also make it easier to define the difference between well equipped rabble pressed into battle (poor morale and such liable to break and run) and a much more eager opponent with the same gear.
 
No, because for the conflation to work, the core working assumption is that all entities participating in any given mass combat are people: sapient creatures who care about things like morale, who can break and be routed, etc. This is a fine core assumption if you're building a system for a game about, let's say, Ancient Rome, where everything you're going to fight with a bunch of legionaries can fit into the circle labeled "other humans", so core mechanics assuming that everyone is a human and will react accordingly are fine.

This game, on the other hand, has armies of zombies, murderbots, zergling demon spiders, mind-controlled fearless fanatics and other shit in it which does not adhere to the core assumption: morale is not a part of every combat by definition, so the core functionality needs to work without morale, and effects of morale apply only when actually applicable. Doing it the other way around results only in a patchwork which isn't ideal, with every single instance of morale/damage conflation running into "these things we're fighting don't fit into the core assumption" and requiring an explicit exemption.

The "let's treat big blobs of lesser entities as a single stronger entity" core assumption has a similar problem: it only works if you don't have weirdo magic powers that a single entity can use on other single entities that makes zero sense whatsoever vs an abstracted unit-blob, and if you insist on using that as a core assumption, every single such magic power is going to need an exception. Or this global copout "um shit let's just force it on the GM to fiat adjudicate, not our problem!" stupidity, I suppose.
The core assumption appears to be that morale is a factor in most combats, and thus attempts to address that situation best. And, having checked the rules, the concept of perfect morale doesn't seem to take up much space (2 paragraphs) or rules adjustments (auto-pass one check, can't make another type, +3 bonus to a stat). I haven't looked too long, but I'm not sure how "wonky" the rules get with perfect morale units.

Yes, this is clearly a rather large abstraction from the base game, but saying that the abstraction is utterly unworkable in this aspect seems rather off base. The odd reactions regarding single target spells is an actual weakness of the abstraction, and not one that I think has a good answer. Rule zero can mitigate it, and that seems that's how they want players to deal with it, but I buy a system so that it can tell me what to do most of the time. Not for me to decide how the system should work for my games.
 
Actually, the system tries to handle the issue of battlegroups with perfect morale having, well, perfect morale. Admittedly, it does so by adding only a +3 modifier to the battlegroup's Magnitude.

Or you do it the other way around and not have to deal with stupid workarounds, like separating morale from casualties.

I think it'd work a lot better (and more sanely) with a numbered value for morale (I know, more to keep track of) that is static but limits the amount of Magnitude damage a given attack can do. It'd also make it easier to define the difference between well equipped rabble pressed into battle (poor morale and such liable to break and run) and a much more eager opponent with the same gear.

Precisely! Except, lol, they didn't do that, did they?
 
The core assumption appears to be that morale is a factor in most combats, and thus attempts to address that situation best. And, having checked the rules, the concept of perfect morale doesn't seem to take up much space (2 paragraphs) or rules adjustments (auto-pass one check, can't make another type, +3 bonus to a stat). I haven't looked too long, but I'm not sure how "wonky" the rules get with perfect morale units.

Yes, this is clearly a rather large abstraction from the base game, but saying that the abstraction is utterly unworkable in this aspect seems rather off base.

Okay, here's a question. Hypothetically, how would a separated casualties and morale system not work for most combats? It makes more intuitive sense and works fine for every situation up to and including the weirder shit like zombies, murderbots, demons, fairies, mind-slaves, whatever, since it accounts for their existence by the basic trait of having separated concerns baked in.

What advantages accrue from creating a merged casualties/morale concept that a separated system does not also do, which, remember, must compensate for the problem of being shit at handling anything that is not "other humans", which do not operate by human psychology?

Logically, you have casualties, which everything suffers, and a number of different psychological models to handle what happens when an army of [entity] takes those casualties. The most obvious and correct option here is a separate psychology layer, yes? A modular drop-in to handle any and all cases of variant psychology, and we know we will have to deal with variant psychology. So tell me, why not have a separate psychology layer?

The odd reactions regarding single target spells is an actual weakness of the abstraction, and not one that I think has a good answer. Rule zero can mitigate it, and that seems that's how they want players to deal with it, but I buy a system so that it can tell me what to do most of the time. Not for me to decide how the system should work for my games.

Like I said above, there's the high buyin, but where's the payoff?
 
Last edited:
Okay, here's a question. Hypothetically, how would a separated casualties and morale system not work for most combats? It makes more intuitive sense and works fine for every situation up to and including the weirder shit like zombies, murderbots, demons, fairies, mind-slaves, whatever, since it accounts for their existence by the basic trait of having separated concerns baked in.

What advantages accrue from creating a merged casualties/morale concept that a separated system does not also do, which, remember, must compensate for the problem of being shit at handling anything that is not "other humans", which do not operate by human psychology?

Logically, you have casualties, which everything suffers, and a number of different psychological models to handle what happens when an army of [entity] takes those casualties. The most obvious and correct option here is a separate psychology layer, yes? So tell me, why not have a separate psychology layer?


Like I said above, there's the high buyin, but where's the payoff?
It depends on how expansive things are. It's essentially the same trade-off every abstraction a simulation makes. The less abstracted it is, the more accurate, but the more time and effort. The more abstracted, the less accurate, but the easier/simpler. And any pnp RPG is going to make compromises somewhere: the size of the Exalted rule book isn't because it contains a fully detailed table top game in the vein of Warhammer fantasy. Another layer could be a huge thing, or it could be relatively minor, not significantly more work than the current system(where only one extreme is noted, and that extreme has a few relatively minor hacks).

And, depending on implementation, it might be good to not have a full morale meter: if you actually had more detailed and expansive rules regarding how individual magics reacted with mass combat, then there would probably be enough other things that you don't necessarily want another complication.
 
It depends on how expansive things are. It's essentially the same trade-off every abstraction a simulation makes. The less abstracted it is, the more accurate, but the more time and effort. The more abstracted, the less accurate, but the easier/simpler. And any pnp RPG is going to make compromises somewhere: the size of the Exalted rule book isn't because it contains a fully detailed table top game in the vein of Warhammer fantasy. Another layer could be a huge thing, or it could be relatively minor, not significantly more work than the current system(where only one extreme is noted, and that extreme has a few relatively minor hacks).

Don't forget that you need to budget the size, complexity and effectiveness of each and every one of your exceptions to your default assumption that all participants are other humans into the cost of making that assumption, given that we know before we start that we need to handle a very large array of things that are not other humans.

Is the development cost of writing a "casualties module" with plugin "psychology module" less than writing a "unified humans vs humans module" with hacked-on workarounds for things that aren't humans, which ends up looking like the former setup anyway with enough workarounds, except you don't have the basic design for hot-swappable psychology built in?

And, depending on implementation, it might be good to not have a full morale meter: if you actually had more detailed and expansive rules regarding how individual magics reacted with mass combat, then there would probably be enough other things that you don't necessarily want another complication.

Given that we're talking core design principles, if we had a sane system for handling mass combat, why in the world would we need to write individual exceptions for every single piece of magic that interacts weirdly with blob units? We simply wouldn't have any blob units, because part of the problem with blob units is that they mandate we create individual exceptions for every single piece of magic that interacts weirdly with blob units.

For example, why wouldn't we do something along the lines of, for example, simply let the Exalt kill as many people as he normally could (probability of death * individuals hit, or something equally simple to handle and intuitive) and then apply the effects of those casualties to the unit like our basic casualties > morale pipeline system already handles?
 
Last edited:
Don't forget that you need to budget the size, complexity and effectiveness of each and every one of your exceptions to your default assumption that all participants are other humans into the cost of making that assumption, given that we know before we start that we need to handle a very large array of things that are not other humans.
Yes, because obviously when people start using an abstraction their first step is to figure out how to not use an abstraction and instead do everything.
Given that we're talking core design principles, if we had a sane system for handling mass combat, why in the world would we need to write individual exceptions for every single piece of magic that interacts weirdly with blob units? We simply wouldn't have any blob units, because part of the problem with blob units is that they mandate we create individual exceptions for every single piece of magic that interacts weirdly with blob units.
A sane system that doesn't use blob units, has individually targeting magics, and is made for mass combat? That seems like a bunch of mutually contradictory design goals.
 
Yes, because obviously when people start using an abstraction their first step is to figure out how to not use an abstraction and instead do everything.

Yes, because obviously when I set out to design an abstraction my first step is to figure out how best to fit my model to the thing it is supposed to be modeling. Am I designing an abstraction for purely Caesar vs Hannibal, or for Mecha-Caesar vs Zombie Hannibal with Golem Lord Qin Shihuang throwing in on top?

Because if I have to do the latter, "how the fuck do zombies, golems and mecha work" is a necessary constraint. I cannot ignore this.

A sane system that doesn't use blob units, has individually targeting magics, and is made for mass combat? That seems like a bunch of mutually contradictory design goals.

Only if you're absolutely married to the abstractions in use here. Like, here's an example use case you'd have to go through to get this right.

Event: Solar fires extremely powerful single-target archery attack at a military unit composed of normal people only, with no magical bullshit going on except the Solar himself. Solar's intent is to cause maximum damage/disruption. This is a very likely thing that will happen in most games.

Expected commonsense result: Solar kills whoever he was shooting at. If this person was important, like an officer, the unit shall be negatively impacted in morale, it may lose cohesion, possibly rout, etc. Otherwise, the Solar causes only one casualty despite how powerful his attack is.

Is there some inherent reason why this should not be handled as a normal engagement of a Solar trying to hit a single target, with the effects of the loss of that single target upon his unit being handled as part of whatever military morale system handles losses of commanding officers by whatever the source?
 
Last edited:
Actually, the system tries to handle the issue of battlegroups with perfect morale having, well, perfect morale. Admittedly, it does so by adding only a +3 modifier to the battlegroup's Magnitude.
Which seems way too small, even if you assume a Solar can easily kill a dozen common soldiers in the blink of an eye. Then again, it would fit the apparently logarithmic relationship between the number of combatants in a battle group and how many health levels it has.

Event: Solar fires extremely powerful single-target archery attack at a military unit composed of normal people only, with no magical bullshit going on except the Solar himself. Solar's intent is to cause maximum damage/disruption. This is a very likely thing that will happen in most games.
Actually, I don't think it will. Whatever actually happens when a Solar launch a mechanically-ordinary attack on a battle group, it's clearly not this.
 
Actually, I don't think it will. Whatever actually happens when a Solar launch a mechanically-ordinary attack on a battle group, it's clearly not this.

Do you think "Solar Archery character with single-target attack tries to snipe officers out of a military unit" is something that would not happen with regularity in a game involving a) Solar Archery characters and b) hostile military forces?
 
Yes, because obviously when I set out to design an abstraction my first step is to figure out how best to fit my model to the thing it is supposed to be modeling. Am I designing an abstraction for purely Caesar vs Hannibal, or for Mecha-Caesar vs Zombie Hannibal with Golem Lord Qin Shihuang throwing in on top?

Because if I have to do the latter, "how the fuck do zombies, golems and mecha work" is a necessary constraint. I cannot ignore this.
I thought this was about how difficult/rewarding the mechanics are in practice, not how difficult it is to set up. Because the latter is pretty useless metric for how it works in play.

Only if you're absolutely married to the abstractions in use here. Like, here's an example use case you'd have to go through to get this right.

Event: Solar fires extremely powerful single-target archery attack at a military unit composed of normal people only, with no magical bullshit going on except the Solar himself. Solar's intent is to cause maximum damage/disruption. This is a very likely thing that will happen in most games.

Expected commonsense result: Solar kills whoever he was shooting at. If this person was important, like an officer, the unit shall be negatively impacted in morale, it may lose cohesion, possibly rout, etc. Otherwise, the Solar causes only one casualty despite how powerful his attack is.

Is there some inherent reason why this should not be handled as a normal engagement of a Solar trying to hit a single target, with the effects of the loss of that single target upon his unit being handled as part of whatever military morale system handles losses of commanding officers by whatever the source?
No, though sniping officers and important people on either side isn't really the biggest test for a mass combat system(if you're inclined to have one).

Also, the system as present does handle some things like this already.
 
I thought this was about how difficult/rewarding the mechanics are in practice, not how difficult it is to set up. Because the latter is pretty useless metric for how it works in play.

...

/facepalm

No, though sniping officers and important people on either side isn't really the biggest test for a mass combat system(if you're inclined to have one).

It's something that will come up more often in play than army vs army. It is something that must be handled, much like, say, what happens when you hit a cohesive military unit with a magical AoE attack is something that you need to handle because most likely, this is going to come up more often than what happens with military units fighting each other.

All these things should not be exceptions to whatever mechanism you're using for handling military units, for blindingly obvious reasons.

Also, the system as present does handle some things like this already.

As exceptions on top of dodgy assumptions, sure.
 
Last edited:
A sane system that doesn't use blob units, has individually targeting magics, and is made for mass combat? That seems like a bunch of mutually contradictory design goals.
Remind me to work on my hack of GURPS Mass Combat when I have free time. Of course, while GURPS does use blob units, if you go into mass combat as opposed to regular combat, the heroes are also treated as blob units. If you were talking about Solars, then GURPS would have one army be smaller but could have lots of tricks like Stealth, C3I (War Charms!), Fire(Archery Charms! Sorcery!) Armor(Dodge Charms! Resistance Charms! Artifact Armor!) Recon (Awareness Charms!) Artillery(Sorcery! Archery Charms!), possibly Nuetrailize C3I/Artillary/Recon and obviously Hero and Super-Soldier.

Even under this system, Exalts will still wreck face, but it at least distinguishes between casualties, morale, and has specific and noted ways of handling non-humans integrated directly into the rules.
 
Do you think "Solar Archery character with single-target attack tries to snipe officers out of a military unit" is something that would not happen with regularity in a game involving a) Solar Archery characters and b) hostile military forces?
No, I'm saying that when a Solar makes an ordinary withering or decisive attack against a battle group, perhaps boosted by an excellency or similar charms, whatever he is actually doing is not something that a reasonable observer would describe as a single-target non-magical attack.
 
No, I'm saying that when a Solar makes an ordinary withering or decisive attack against a battle group, perhaps boosted by an excellency or similar charms, whatever he is actually doing is not something that a reasonable observer would describe as a single-target non-magical attack.

So... I, a supremely skilled archer, cannot snipe officers out of a military unit? Are you quite sure that's what you want your system to be claiming?
 
Back
Top