Of Command & Control

Commentary on campaigns and combat within the realm of UrD&D

In my last essay, I discussed the concept of Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns and the various characters that populate the campaign world. This has been a very beneficial endeavour, and many individuals have reached out to me to discuss this concept. This is all well and good.

However, this brings up a much bigger sticking point within the Dungeons and Dragons wargame campaign hobby: what are we actually doing when we campaign?

A lot of this is obvious, and I will not dive into the minutiae of economics, etc. I will briefly say, as an aside, that while we may strive for realism, at the end of the day many of us are playing for the sake of playing a game. Do not lose sight of the forest by staring at trees.

As a brief example: the economics of a campaign are important, but they also have the ability to become the campaign itself. This means that you might end up roleplaying as an accountant, but I digress.

So what exactly are we doing when we take on the role of a campaign-level character within a FMWC? This is a crucial question.

In the large-scale fantasy medieval wargame campaign, many referees become bogged down with the endless scenarios that result from players simply being enthusiastic about the game. This is the death of a thousand papercuts for most referees. Many of these problems stem from the misunderstanding of how to play a role, or not even understanding what playing a role means. One major issue that weighs down the referee and stalls the campaign from progressing is the bulk of wargame scenarios that inevitably arise during the course of a campaign.

A complete shock, really, who would have ever thought that a wargame campaign would actually involve a wargame? At face value, this is actually not a problem at all. Many of us would identify this as a thriving campaign.

How do we address this without overwhelming the referee with endless weekly wargame scenarios, many of which are only initiated by players who want to grind them like a video game?

One partial solution I have used is to have multiple referees. It should come as no surprise that Original Dungeons & Dragons accounts for this. On page 5 of the Men & Magic booklet it is stated that “At least one referee and from four to fifty players can be handled in any single campaign, but the referee to player ratio should be about 1:20 or thereabouts.”

This is a fairly well-known passage, as many have speculated about how such a game was even supposed to operate. Everyone knows that D&D is supposed to be run with one Dungeon Master and a cohesive party of super friends, right? The FMWC, and the culture that produced it, operated with very different assumptions about conducting a campaign.

Having multiple referees can help, and it is a good idea to include them in these large campaigns, but they are not a complete solution. Eventually they will become overwhelmed as well. Offloading the work to others is a temporary fix at best. These various strategies with multiple people waiting to run wargame scenarios can be effective, but I believe this is a bandaid that does not address the underlying issue.

The problem is not the amount of engagement that the campaign is generating. The real problem is fundamentally misunderstanding what the work actually is.

Let’s take a step back and discuss my previous essay, Of Campaigns & Characters. One of the major reasons it was written was to address the FMWC and how the campaign rules of Original Dungeons & Dragons would create the backdrop in which play occurs.

The second part of the essay focused on characters, specifically campaign characters, but characters nonetheless. In the game of Dungeons & Dragons, the players take on the role of a character. That is fundamental. Characters that are NOT the player are deemed “non-player characters.” This is all straightforward.

The crucial misstep plaguing these large-scale campaigns is not the lack of referees, it is not player laziness, and it is not a skill issue. Rather, It is a fundamental misunderstanding about the relationship between the player roles and the non-player roles.

Let me ask you this: when a large-scale combat occurs, whom is the player controlling? Are they controlling the entire army like a super-sentient hive mind? Is the player’s role that of some omniscient deity, capable of telepathically communicating and directing entire armies at will? Or are players assuming the role of their individual character? What is that character doing while the battle is taking place?

How does any of this solve anything? It solves more than it appears to at first glance.

The problem with offloading the work of larger combats to another referee, or even having other outside gamers play them out, is that the game ends up being played as though an all-knowing deity were moving the pieces around, making perfect decisions with perfect information. This approach is disordered.

If Dungeons & Dragons is centered on assuming the role of one character at a time, then the large-scale combats should reflect that as well. If a player’s character is not even on the battlefield, why should he know anything about what occurs during the battle? A character can only have influence in a campaign inasmuch as they are actively involved.

The Original Dungeons & Dragons booklets speak directly to this.

On page 32 of THE UNDERWORLD & WILDERNESS ADVENTURES, there is a section titled “Command Control.” This particular part of the booklet specifically addresses naval combat, but it is highly relevant to the topic at hand. It states: “It is necessary that a leader or one of his lieutenants be nearby to issue orders to (their) men…” and “The range of command control is the Charisma rating as a radius in inches.”

I will go out on a limb here and say that characters in their hidey holes are not within range to issue orders to their armies.

All of this is why passing off wargame scenarios to different individuals has still remained too cumbersome. The assumption that players or referees control entire armies with omniscient precision is, at its core, antithetical to the design philosophy of D&D.

So how do we actually intend to implement this idea?

The rules explicitly provide the framework. Players play their own role, while the non-player characters assume their own roles within the campaign.

On page 32 under “Command Control,” you will see the rule fleshed out and explained.

1. Leaders involved in melee have their command control range halved.

2. Personnel beyond the range of the leader’s or lieutenants’ command control will not respond.

3. Lieutenants must be within command control range of the leader to pass on orders, or themselves respond.

4. Monsters and unintelligent creatures do not have command control problems, and they will act according to what is going on around them.

5. Leaders in plain view above their men/subordinates will add 1” to their command control range radius for every 10’ they are above them. Thus a leader on a stern castle would be about 20’ higher than the deck, and he would add 2” to his range of command control.

6. Personnel engaged in melee will only respond to commands when a roll of 1–4 is made (on a six-sided die). This will be checked each turn. Therefore, orders for withdrawal, for example, can be given for three turns later which allows three turns for the personnel to respond.

Something I want to highlight in particular is rule number 6. Non-player characters that are engaged in melee will not be able to respond at times. This implies that they have already been given orders, and further communication is an attempt to change these orders.

Additionally, we see in rule number 2 that this applies to lieutenants as well. Just because a player is present and their character is on the battlefield, that does not mean that they will have free rein to do whatever they please. Orders are given and not received at times. There is a lag between decision making and implementation.

So how exactly should we be structuring all of this?

Players in a FMWC should be expected to lead their armies. This means they should learn how to strategize effectively. Non-player characters cannot be assumed to understand what you want from them on the battlefield if you do not explicitly tell them.

If we return to rule number 6, it clearly shows that the non-player characters are already carrying out orders. When are they given these orders? Prior to engaging in combat.

At the beginning of the turn sequence section in Chainmail, under the simultaneous movement system, we see that “Both sides write orders for each of their units (groups of figures of like type), including direction of movement and facing.” This rule must have been important, and likely the cause of many debates, because it is elaborated further: “Exact orders for each unit (group of figures of like type) must be given. Cavalry may be given the order to ‘Charge if Charged’ (CIC) either on their own behalf or in support of any nearby friendly unit.”

Writing orders for units has been at the core of the hobby since the 1960s, and we should expect them to be no different here with the campaign ruleset.

Now, it is no secret, especially if you have read my last essay, that Dungeons & Dragons is intended to serve as the campaign rules. Chainmail itself was presented as a game that was not inherently a campaign, but could be played out as one. Thus D&D was created in a somewhat roundabout way.

My point is this: in Chainmail, you write orders prior to engagement. However, in a campaign, you should be writing “orders” before the battle even occurs. Your non-player characters should know what is expected of them. They should have a set of orders already given to them.

This plan should be drawn up and recorded beforehand, in the same spirit as a kriegsspiel map. A modern example would be the Xs and Os of a football play. The coach calls the play prior to the snap, and things will either work out or they won’t. Once the play is in motion, the coach cannot physically alter the engagement as it unfolds.

In the FMWC, the battle is a single play with lasting ramifications. If the player’s character is on the battlefield and is leading the army, he may attempt to call an audible, as outlined in the command control rules. If the player’s character (campaign character or otherwise) is not present on the battlefield, well, he is at the mercy of his gameplan and training of his troops. Those troops may very well make poor decisions. They may panic. They may end up as prisoners.

At this point, some of you may object and say that Chainmail is not played out with using Command Control, and you would be right.

We do see that, when Land Combat takes place, “the basic system is that from CHAINMAIL…” and Chainmail does not explicitly include command control rules. However, we also see a precedent set in Original Dungeons & Dragons that it was intended to modify and build upon the Chainmail framework. One example with Fighting Capability: “This is a key to use in conjunction with the CHAINMAIL fantasy rule, as modified in various places herein”

Elsewhere, it states that “functions are generally as indicated in CHAINMAIL where not contradictory to the information stated hereinafter” when describing how monsters are intended to operate.

I would propose that the same principle should apply to Command Control and combat within campaigns.

How this looks in practice is similar to what I have described. Players establish standing strategies for their armies. Orders should be established and drawn up prior to combat. Engagements will follow the established strategies and orders unless they become altered within command limits.

For example, if the armies of two players unexpectedly meet on a hex map (as in OD&D recommended Outdoor Survival), those armies should already have general instructions on how to respond. If the players have their characters present at the combat and are not surprised, they may adjust the plan prior to the first engagement.

If the players do not have their characters present on the battlefield, the engagement will be carried out with the established orders. If a player has not provided orders prior to the engagement and is not present at the time of battle, the referee may simply have them engage in a generic manner or immediately check for morale.

Being unprepared for military engagement would be incredibly demoralizing and could also lead to issues with loyalty. Poor preparation should have consequences.

Combats using this method should, more or less, play themselves out very quickly. They do not require an exhaustive amount of simulation.

I want to note that Gygax himself stated in the foreword of the original game: “It is relatively simple to set up a fantasy campaign, and better still, it will cost almost nothing. In fact you will not even need miniature figures, although their occasional employment is recommended for real spectacle when battles are fought.” This suggests that the resolution of these combats were important to the core experience of the game, while spectacle was not.

It is very possible that Gygax hamfisted all of these ideas together, but I take him at face value when he says this about miniatures. With that in mind, one could see how pre-written orders and the command control system would be effective. This allows for the combat to naturally play itself out without a lot of extra work.

To return to a central point of this essay: while Dungeons & Dragons is the campaign ruleset for Fantastic Medieval Wargames, we should not lose the forest for the trees when it comes to resolving battles in the campaign. Just as I mentioned regarding campaign economics, it is easy to become overly focused on particular details at the expense of actual play. Do not lose sight of the game.

Having a functioning economy for the campaign is valuable, but it should not distract from the game itself. Likewise, playing out wargame scenarios is the right idea, but it should not eliminate what it means to play a role.

With this broader perspective in mind, having multiple referees is still a good approach. Resolving these combats in a tactical Xs and Os fashion should be fairly straightforward. Additionally, referees should be able to handle scenarios as they arise without needing to delegate them entirely to others.

With the proper framework, referees can implement player strategies, and resolve the outcomes fairly quickly. It is likely that within a few turns morale and leadership will become the deciding factors.

One point that I would be remiss not to mention is that the leadership of these armies becomes even more invaluable at this stage. This pairs with campaign character creation as well. Campaign characters must have personality. Especially those that are leading armies.

Tony Bath offers multiple ways for giving personality to such characters. Twilight 2000 likewise features a system that is very similar in spirit. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons includes an extensive list for non-player character traits and personality. All of this becomes significantly more relevant when you must entrust your armies to one of these characters. (This deserves an essay all to itself.)

Are these characters even loyal?

In Original Dungeons & Dragons it is stated that: “... the loyalty of the characters (is) noted by the referee. The player will not have any knowledge of what it is without some method of reading minds.” and: “Non-player characters and men-at-arms will have to make morale checks whenever a highly dangerous or unnerving situation arises. Poor morale will mean that those in question will not perform as expected.”

It is entirely possible that you may have sent a disloyal commander on a sensitive mission, unknowingly sealing the fate of your men.

In my previous essay, I described how to construct a Fantastic Medieval Wargame Campaign, and how the characters within it operate. In this essay, I have focused on what it actually means to play a role, and how that shapes combat involving non-player characters.

I have been told that this style of gameplay and campaigning never existed in early D&D, and that my assumptions about the game are incorrect.

Good.

My goal is not to replicate convention play from the 1970s. My goal is to engage with the concept of Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns in the fullest sense. Not as it was played, but as it actually is.

The crown of UrD&D lies dormant in the gutter.

Pull out your sword and claim it.