When Things Go Off the Chart

can, many human soldiers don’t get across the river; fully one-quarter are killed or captured.” The second question you need to address is “To what degree can the PCs realistically alter the outcome?” This is a judgment call based on what you know about the PCs’ abilities and those of their foes. If you’re unsure how much influence the PCs can have over the battle as a whole, give them the benefit of the doubt. Even low-level PCs aren’t just extras—they’re the protagonists of the story you’re telling. Not every mass battle should hinge on the PCs’ actions, but it’s perfectly acceptable to say that the PCs can have a demonstrable influence on the battle’s outcome, even if they’re ostensibly just part of the rank and file. Create three more possible outcomes now—one that’s a little better than the nominal outcome, one that’s a lot better than the nominal outcome, and one that’s worse than the nominal outcome. The more influence you think the PCs can wield over the battle as a whole, the more these three outcomes will diverge from the nominal outcome. If the PCs are just cogs in a vast war machine, the outcomes might all be similar, and you’ll describe the differences in smaller terms (such as how well the PCs’ platoon does, rather than how well the whole army does). But if the PCs are the linchpin of their army, their success or failure can change the outcome quite a bit. Keep in mind that PC actions don’t always equal overall victory, no matter how many victory points they earn. If the PCs’ army is completely overmatched, then a less precipitous loss might be the best the PCs can hope for. Against a massive orc horde, for example, the best possible result might be “The human army holds off the orcs well into the night, enabling most of the defenders to escape safely to the far side of the river before the bridges are destroyed to slow the orcs’ advance.” You should have four outcomes now. Arrange them from best to worst, then look at how many victory points are available on the most common paths of your adventure flowchart. Then make your third judgment call: Decide how many victory points the PCs will have to earn to get each result. As a rule of thumb, the PCs should get the worst result if they earn 25 percent or less of the available victory points on the likely flowchart path, the nominal result if they earn between 26 percent and 50 percent, the good result if they earn between 51 percent and 75 percent, and the great result if they earn more than 75 percent. Adjust the percentages as you see fit, and you’ve constructed the framework that will guide you as you describe the battle’s overall outcome to the players.

PCs are notoriously independent, so they don’t always follow the carefully crafted battleplans of their commanders. The character’s actions will certainly veer off your carefully constructed flowchart from time to time. When this happens, you have a number of tools to bring them back into encounters you’ve prepared—or you can have fun improvising as characters wander around the battlefield. Especially for players accustomed to dungeons and other site-based adventures, the temptation to just wander around the battlefield slaying everything in sight is palpable. For the first time ever, the PCs are in close proximity to hundreds or thousands of enemies, and they have carte blanche to hold nothing back in combat. But even players experienced in battlefield adventures sometimes decide that best battle plan involves nothing on your flowchart, so they make plans of their own. When the PCs are about to leave your flowchart behind, here are some things you can do.

Order Them Back on Track: The most obvious solution—and it’s one steeped in the war genre—is to have a commanding officer give the PCs a direct order that leads them into an encounter on your flowchart. Even if the rank-and-file soldiers have a “better” idea, the commanders are the ones who get to set the course of battle. But PCs are a stubborn bunch, and players tend to resent being railroaded into a course of action they don’t like. Before you have an NPC commander order the PCs to undertake a particular mission, consider how likely the PCs are to balk completely, potentially setting up an insubordination or desertion crisis in the middle of the battle. It’s often better if a commander appeals to a known motivator for the PCs, such as bravery, loyalty, or pride. For example, say the characters get the idea that they’d like to sneak behind enemy lines and take out the enemy general. However, your adventure relies on them protecting a keep from wave after wave of enemy attacks. Rather than having the PCs’ commanding officer order them to stay put and forbid them from going general-hunting, she could do any of the following: • Appeal to the PCs’ bravery, noting that she’s assigning them this defensive position because the rank-and-file troops are too quick to retreat. • Point out the keep’s strategic importance (implying that a lot of victory points are at stake if the PCs can hold the location). • Mention the opportunities for plunder (well-equipped mercenaries will be the attackers) or glory (implying that a lot of recognition points are at stake). • Observe that the enemy’s command structure can certainly withstand the loss of a single general, but that holding on to the fortifications on the battlefield is the key to winning the day.

Real-life commanders rarely have to explain their orders or appeal to their soldiers’ honor and good nature. But your fictional counterparts should do so because it gives the players control over their PCs’ destiny—even if you’re nudging them in a particular direction.