Proposed internal warband politics mechanic (phew)

Just a little something I've been playing around with to cut down on the inevitable power creep. It isn't finished, but I'd like to hear thoughts:

Leadership of the Gang

Keeping a warband together is a tricky prospect in the best of times, but it can become downright impossible if times get tough. Or even worse, when the warband achieves some success. Once they achieve some personal power, a leader's one time loyal lieutenants can start to covet his position, or once loyal followers can start to feel they aren't being suitably compensated for their contributions.

This occurs in the Experience Phase of the post game sequence. Every time a hero gains a new skill in the second or third experience track, he must roll that number or higher that that number of pips +2 on 2d6 or he must roll on the Warband Politics Chart (example: If a hero has 40 experience, he must roll a 4 or higher or he gains a negative trait)

Roll 2d6:

2. Treacherous: The hero attempts to assassinate the current leader with a quick knife in the back, some poison smuggled into his wine, or other treacherous means. Roll 1d6:
1: Success! The leader is dead! The upstart immediately makes an appeal to the warband (Ld check). If he succeeds, he takes over the warband as its new leader. If he fails, then the hero with the highest experience immediately challenges him as Ambitious below.
2: Leader wounded: The attempt fails and the assassin is killed, but not before he injures the leader. The leader must roll on the injury chart as if he was put OOA in the last encounter. If he was put OOA in the last encounter, then he must roll twice and take the lower of the two numbers.
3: Failed attempt: The attempt fails and the assassin is killed.
4-6: No Opportunity Presented Itself: The assassin either couldn't find a window, or didn't have the guts when a window presented itself. But he will bide his time. Every time the hero gains a new skill, he must roll on this chart again.

3. Pious: The Hero has discovered a deeper connection to the Church of Sigmar (or the Shadowlord, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc). He insists that the Warband for now on tithe one pience of Wyrdstone to this church every encounter. If the leader refuses, the upstart leaves. Roll on the "Lost a Challenge" chart

4. Larcenous: The hero flees in the night, taking with him what he feels he is owed. He takes all his equipment plus the single most valuable item the warband possesses, never to be seen again.

5. Ambitious: The hero thinks he could do a better job than the current leader in running this outfit. He challenges the current leader to a (roll d6):

1-2: The two fight a duel. The two fight in hand to hand. They make an initiative test to determine who charges. The fight goes on until one of the heroes is stunned or put out of action. The loser must roll on the "lost a challenge" chart below.
3-4: The two fight a wrestling match. The two make either opposed S or I rolls. First one to fail must roll on the "Lost a Challenge" chart.
5-6: The two make an appeal to the warband. They both make leadership rolls and continue to roll until one fails and the other succeeds. The one who prevails has convinced the warband and the other must roll on the "lost a challenge" chart.

6. Disillusioned: The upstart hero is sick of this life, but he allows the leader to convince him of his place in the warband. The leader makes a Ld roll. If he succeeds, the hero is mollified and stays (for now), if he fails, the hero decides to leave with all his possessions. Roll on the "Lost a Challenge" chart.

7. Greedy: The hero feels he isn't being suitably remunerated for his part in the warband's success. He demands 5gc x the number the hero was required to beat or he takes all his possessions and leaves. Roll on the "Lost a Challenge" chart.

8. Weary: The constant tension is starting to affect the hero. He need a break. He asks the Leader for some time away from Mordheim. The leader can give him 1-3 encounters off to recuperate, just as if he were injured. Then the hero must roll that number or less on 1d3 or the upstart will roll on the "Lost a challenge" chart

9. Traitorous: The upstart leaves, and sells you out to your opponents either for profit or out of spite. Your next opponent may pay 5 gcs to pick the encounter.

10. Cowardly: After encountering death one too many times, the hero has lost his nerve. The hero now fears anyone with more experience than him.

11. Battle Mad: The hero's psyche snaps and he becomes addicted to the rush of combat. The hero is now subject to Frenzy, can only use hand to hand weapons, but the leader must test his Ld to keep him if the warband routs. If he fails, he will leave the warband in disgust.

12. Rebellious: The upstart hero has been fomenting dissension in the ranks. The Leader makes a Ld check for each other hero and henchman group. Every success has that warrior(s) joining with the upstart and leaving to form a new warband. Once sides are chosen, the warband owner may decide which group he wants to continue with, those that have stayed loyal to the original leader, or those that have gone with the upstarts.

Edit: I finished the chart. Not totally happy with the #11 and #10 slots, and I may need to juggle the locations of various possibilities a bit. Leaving the Warband Chart to follow

Edit 2: Added the ability to buy down the loyalty roll. Changed Principled to Pious.

Edit 3: Tweaked #8 Weary to not make it an automatic hero leaves. Changed #12 Rebellious to make the Leader the one who rolls.

Nice. I have tried similar approaches in the past. They didn't go over so good with the lads.

This would fit in well in most campaigns. Especially Sartosa.

I think I'll pass! I come up with pretty elaborate backgrounds for my warbands members, and I don't need random rolls messing with who they are. To me, this change would almost be as bad as having to roll random personality changes for my RPG characters.

Suit yourself. I just find that after 10 or so games the power level is silly. Plus, what's more fluffy than fratricide?

It's pretty ludicrous that a band of murderous cutthroats are all pulling together and working as a team.

I'm of two minds on the matter. On the one hand, I'm with mweaver - although it's definitely "fluffy" from one perspective, it may not fit the fluff that I've created for my warband. Additionally, when realism trumps fun factor, I feel like fun factor should win out.

Conversely, I think the idea can be implemented in a way that's less frequent, less random, and less harsh, but still maintains the spirit of the idea. I would suggest something like anytime another hero surpasses the leader in experience or LD value, the leader has to make a leadership test. If he fails, then the ambitious hero challenges him for leadership of the warband and the two must duel. The player who controls the warband may choose which model to control, while his opponent controls the other. From there, play it out exactly as the "Sold to the Pits" serious injury. Whoever wins gains 1 xp, the Leader ability if he didn't have it already, and gets to keep the loser's equipment.

Furthermore, I can think of a good many warbands that should be exempt. Sisters of Sigmar, Elves and Dwarfs, Witch Hunters, and Undead to name a few (not because of loyalty to the vampire, but rather out of fear).

It's an intriguing idea, but since our group is using At the Mouth of Madness already, I'm not going to pursue this one at this point. But I'm adding your idea to my "for the future" list - ideally, I'd like to cut down the insanity from At the Mouth of Madness to a more-manageable level (in other words, less book-keeping!) and add something like what you have as well - after all, it can be explained as the Chaotic influence of Mordheim just as easily!

Wait a minute, perhaps combining the two under a more general Warband Campaign Psychology might be the trick.

Sure, Sisters of Sigmar, Shadow Elves, Dwarf Treasure Hunters, and Undead wouldn't be prone to what you have above, but there are fallen Sisters (as a fan-added Hired Sword), and Vampires have a nasty disposition they might take out on their henchmen (and Dregs can't be the most sane/stable of humans).

I'm sure that Druchii and Chaos Dwarfs would be very, very prone to infighting, so not all Elves/Dwarfs would be exampt from this.

Great, more to ponder and mull over...

"It's pretty ludicrous that a band of murderous cutthroats are all pulling together and working as a team."

Ah, well, there's the fundamental difference, I suppose: I don't see my warbands as a band of murderous cutthroats. I do tend to run "good" warbands - indeed, the very ones that others suggested should be exempt (Dwarves, Sisters, Reiklanders, and Shadow elves have been my most frequent warbands).

"Sisters, Reiklanders, Dwarves, and High Elves aren't prone to infighting"?!?

At the risk of derailing my own thread, what are you smoking?

Reiklanders are at best a band of unscrupulous mercenaries, at worst well armed bandits.

High Elves are masters of political intrigue

You may have a point with dwarves, but I'd imagine the retinue of a rogue noble (what the treasure hunters band represents) might be more prone than most.

As for Sisters, well, if you've ever seen a large group of women that didn't succumb to catty infighting, well, then you've seen one more than I, friend.

Just to complete the cycle:

Orcs, Skaven, Possesed, and Beastmen really don't need much prompting.

Marienbergers, Averlanders, and Middenheimers are also freebooting rogues, and would be as prone to infighting as any other group of human beings

Witch Hunters are a suspicious bunch who see traitors everywhere, why not in their own group?

Kislevites are a tough and brutal people, where you can only lead if you are fit to lead. Constantly testing the leadership would almost be expected.

Ostlanders. A bunch of nouveau riche hillbillies could very well fall to infighting once they taste a little success.

Undead are the trickiest, I'll admit, but even Renfield wanted to be a vampire like Dracula and felt betrayed when he was passed over.

"At the risk of derailing my own thread, what are you smoking?"

No reason to get snarky because I don't see the need for your idea in my Mordheim games. There is a bit of difference between minor internal squabbling and cattiness in a group and a random chance one member assassinates another, or someone gets so mad they leave the group, etc. If it works for you and your group, great.

mweaver wrote:

"At the risk of derailing my own thread, what are you smoking?"

No reason to get snarky because I don't see the need for your idea in my Mordheim games.

Exactly. Keep it friendly, please.

I apologize if that was considered snarky. I respectfully disagreed with your post. Apologies if you took it personally. No harm intended.

I guess I just like my mordheim darker.

Fair enough, although I don' think there is any need to apologize. It is an interesting idea - just doesn't fit it with our style of play.

wyldhunt wrote:

I'm sure that Druchii and Chaos Dwarfs would be very, very prone to infighting, so not all Elves/Dwarfs would be exampt from this.

That's very true, these are two races that thrive on curruption, if anything.

Snappy_Dresser wrote:

High Elves are masters of political intrigue

I'd say most high elves, especially after the rise of the dark elves, are very much opposed to assassination as a means of removing political rivals. However, I definitely can envision two strong individuals vying for leadership in a warband. I feel that they would need a less bloody, fatal means of shifting power.

Quote :

You may have a point with dwarves, but I'd imagine the retinue of a rogue noble (what the treasure hunters band represents) might be more prone than most.

As with high elves, subterfuge and assassination seem utterly contrary to dwarfs' nature - a race that is obsessed with personal pride and honor. Given that, if there was to be a challenge for leadership of the band it would probably come to something much more direct in terms of confrontation, albeit still probably nothing fatal. However, if it's all LD based then I guess that's a built-in defense against these kinds of shenanigans ocurring between dwarfs.

Between high elves and dwarfs, this makes me think that it shouldn't be one universal rule, but rather warband-specific (or a handful of variants which different warbands would follow). Conversely, the exceptions to the rule could have it written into their special rules.

Quote :

As for Sisters, well, if you've ever seen a large group of women that didn't succumb to catty infighting, well, then you've seen one more than I, friend.

Nuns.

Quote :

Marienbergers, Averlanders, and Middenheimers are also freebooting rogues, and would be as prone to infighting as any other group of human beings

Kislevites are a tough and brutal people, where you can only lead if you are fit to lead. Constantly testing the leadership would almost be expected.

Ostlanders. A bunch of nouveau riche hillbillies could very well fall to infighting once they taste a little success.

Part of the trouble with human mercenaries, as I see it, is that they're one group that to me has always been the "true nuetral" of Mordheim. A mercenary band can be as sinister or noble as their controlling player wants them to be.

Lastly, almost any band that is led by a magic-user seems that it would be at least somewhat more resistant to internal strife because the warband members hold their leader in such reverance. So while possessed are followers of chaos, the magister holds a lot of control over his superstitious followers. At least, that's the way I see it.

Conversely, the groups most prone to infighting (beastmen, greenskins, skaven), typically suffer from low LD. So if the thing is LD-based, then it reflects that well.

You all seem to be fixating on the attempted assassination roll (which is a roll of 2 on 2d6). I'm inclined to agree that it may be inapropriate for Dwarfs at least. Perhaps I'll put in a "Attempted dishonour" option for certain races (the effect is the same, the dishonoured leader must leave to return to the homeland, as opposed to pushing up daisies).

Most of the other options don't even have an element of violence in them. What do you think of the other options? I am trying to maintain a constant slow turnover in personnel in the Warbands.

Also, how about the idea that if an experienced upstart hero leaves, he is replaced with a green hero of the same type (maybe only if he's an "original" hero?). Not sure about the fluff, but I'll figure something out.

P.S. Nuns are as human as any other group, despite their press.

I haven't particularly seen a need for this sort of mechanism to keep a campaign interesting*, but if you see the need, perhaps the best approach would be to work out separate tables for the different warbands - different "events" but with similar practical results.

*It does sound like your campaigns tend to run longer than ours, so that may be part of the difference. And for the last few years all of our campaigns have been collaborative, where we are basically running allied warbands working toward some long-tern purpose.

Yes, the assassination issue kept coming up for me both because it's the first result on the table, and so even though it's unlikely it's the first one I read,, and also because it seems so at odds with so many of the warbands.

Snappy_Dresser wrote:

Most of the other options don't even have an element of violence in them. What do you think of the other options? I am trying to maintain a constant slow turnover in personnel in the Warbands.

I think they'll achieve that affect, so if that's really what you and your group are going for then I think the list looks fine. I'd just be a bit surprised if everyone were really that willing to let go of so much control over their own warband to dice, though. Players already have to fear the loss of important, or just favorite, characters through poor injury rolls. Why make them silently dread experience advancements too?

Quote :

P.S. Nuns are as human as any other group, despite their press.

So are vikings.

Different types of people have different temperments, and whatever inner turmoil Sister Superior Jane is going through, she's going to have the self-discipline not to disrupt the wellbeing of the sisterhood, unlike Johnny Youngblood who's only alliegance to his captain is in gold.

"why make them silently dread experience rolls"?

For a very good reason. I am trying to make Mordheim something it is not. That is capable of supporting a perpetual campaign. This requires much more personnel turnover than attrition provides.

And Nunneries, in the paralel era in Earth's history, were where nobles sent their wayward and embarrassing second daughters more than places particularly pious women went. Sisters of Sigmar should be no more resistant to political infighting that any other group of humans.

Snappy_Dresser wrote:

"why make them silently dread experience rolls"?

For a very good reason. I am trying to make Mordheim something it is not. That is capable of supporting a perpetual campaign. This requires much more personnel turnover than attrition provides.

Only if you feel the need to maintain a lower power level, but like I said if that's what you're going for then I do think this will work fairly well.

We play a perpetual campaign too, and have never felt that the growth was problematic. For us, the "fix" to end-game power levels is occasionally starting new warbands - as they grown (and as more veteran warbands fall) we end up with a decent mix of ratings, and for any given game we can choose a rating bracket that all players will have at least one warband in which they can field.

It was getting a bit much to keep redoing the same posting, so here it is with a few new edits:

Just a little something I've been playing around with to cut down on the inevitable power creep. It isn't finished, but I'd like to hear thoughts:

Leadership of the Gang

Keeping a warband together is a tricky prospect in the best of times, but it can become downright impossible if times get tough. Or even worse, when the warband achieves some success. Once they achieve some personal power, a leader's one time loyal lieutenants can start to covet his position, or once loyal followers can start to feel they aren't being suitably compensated for their contributions.

This occurs in the Experience Phase of the post game sequence. Every time a hero gains a new skill in the second or third experience track, he must roll that number or higher that that number of pips +2 on 2d6 or he must roll on the Warband Politics Chart (example: If a hero has 40 experience, he must roll a 4 or higher or he gains a negative trait)

Roll 2d6:

2. Treacherous:

If an evil band (Orcs and Goblins, Skaven, Beastmen, etc.) The hero attempts to assassinate the current leader with a quick knife in the back, some poison smuggled into his wine, or other treacherous means. The next time the leader is taken OOA during an encounter Roll 1d6:

1: Success! The leader is dead! The upstart immediately makes an appeal to the warband (Ld check). If he succeeds, he takes over the warband as its new leader. If he fails, then the hero with the highest experience immediately challenges him as Ambitious below
2: Leader wounded: The attempt fails and the assassin is folied, but not before he injures the leader. The leader must roll on the injury chart as if he was put OOA in the last encounter. If he was put OOA in the last encounter, then he must roll twice and take the lower of the two numbers. The assassin must roll on the "lost a challenge" chart
3: Failed attempt: The attempt fails. The assassin must roll on the "lost a challenge".
4-6: No Opportunity Presented Itself: The assassin either couldn't find a window, or didn't have the guts when a window presented itself. But he will bide his time. The next time the leader is put OOA, he must roll on this chart again.

If a "good" warband (SOS, Shadow Warriors, Dwarf Treasure Hunters, etc.) or undead: The upstart tries to stage a political coup by embarrassing the leader to his superiors, hoping they will demote or replace him. The next time a leader voluntarily routs Roll 1D6:

1. Leader recalled. The leaders superiors or family members are so mortified by the scandal that they immediately recall the leader, taking with him all his equipment. The upstart makes a LD roll and if successful, he becomes the leader. If he fails, then a rookie leader arrives to take over. You may arm him with any equipment from the warband's gear list (at the normal price). In the case of Undead, a rookie Vampire arrives automatically, the upstart does not get to check Ld to see if he takes over.
2. Major embarrassment: The political scandal isn't fatal to the leader, but he must placate his superiors back home to maintain control. He must send d6x10 gcs back home.
3. Minor embarrassment: As above, but it only costs d6x5 gcs to smooth over the scandal
4-5. No effect: Perhaps the ploy was poorly excecuted, perhaps the leader's superior don't expect much. The gambit has no effect.
6. Upstart Recalled. The Leader's allies back home expose the plot and the upstart is the one who is ordered to return. He leaves the warband with all his equipment, never to return.

The following official warbands may choose to roll on either chart each time Treacherous is rolled: Human Mercenaries, Witch Hunters, and any others deemed to be "Neutral".

3. Pious: The Hero has discovered a deeper connection to the Church of Sigmar (or the Shadowlord, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc). He insists that the Warband for now on tithe one pience of Wyrdstone to this church every encounter. If the leader refuses, the upstart leaves. Roll on the "Lost a Challenge" chart

4. Larcenous: The hero flees in the night, taking with him what he feels he is owed. He takes all his equipment plus the single most valuable item the warband possesses, never to be seen again.

5. Ambitious: The hero thinks he could do a better job than the current leader in running this outfit. He challenges the current leader to a (roll d6):

1-2: The two fight a duel. The two fight in hand to hand. They make an initiative test to determine who charges. The fight goes on until one of the heroes is stunned or put out of action. The loser must roll on the "lost a challenge" chart below.
3-4: The two fight a wrestling match. The two make either opposed S or I rolls. First one to fail must roll on the "Lost a Challenge" chart.
5-6: The two make an appeal to the warband. They both make leadership rolls and continue to roll until one fails and the other succeeds. The one who prevails has convinced the warband and the other must roll on the "lost a challenge" chart.

*Skaven, O+G, Possessed, Undead, Beastmen, COC may always decide to fight a duel before rolling.
*Dwarfs may always decide to have a wrestling match before rolling.
*SOS, Witch Hunters, and Shadow Warriors may always make an appeal to the warband before rolling.

6. Greedy: The hero feels he isn't being suitably remunerated for his part in the warband's success. He demands 5gc x the number the hero was required to beat or he takes all his possessions and leaves. Roll on the "Lost a Challenge" chart.

7. Disillusioned: The upstart hero is sick of this life, but he allows the leader to convince him of his place in the warband. The leader makes a Ld roll. If he succeeds, the hero is mollified and stays (for now), if he fails, the hero decides to leave with all his possessions. Roll on the "Lost a Challenge" chart.

8. Weary: The constant tension is starting to affect the hero. He need a break. He asks the Leader for some time away from Mordheim. The leader can give him 1-3 encounters off to recuperate, just as if he were injured. Then the hero must roll that number or less on 1d3 or the upstart will roll on the "Lost a challenge" chart

9. Traitorous: The upstart leaves, and sells you out to your opponents either for profit or out of spite. Your next opponent may pay 5 gcs to pick the encounter.

10. Cowardly: After encountering death one too many times, the hero has lost his nerve. The hero now fears anyone with more experience than himself.

11. Battle Mad: The hero's psyche snaps and he becomes addicted to the rush of combat. The hero is now subject to Frenzy, can only use hand to hand weapons, but the leader must test his Ld to keep him if the warband routs. If he fails, he will leave the warband in disgust.

12. Rebellious: The upstart hero has been fomenting dissension in the ranks. The Leader makes a Ld check for each other hero and henchman group. Every success has that warrior(s) joining with the upstart and leaving to form a new warband. Once sides are chosen, the warband owner may decide which group he wants to continue with, those that have stayed loyal to the original leader, or those that have gone with the upstarts.

Edit: I finished the chart. Not totally happy with the #11 and #10 slots, and I may need to juggle the locations of various possibilities a bit. Leaving the Warband Chart to follow

Edit 2: Added the ability to buy down the loyalty roll. Changed Principled to Pious.

Edit 3: Tweaked #8 Weary to not make it an automatic hero leaves. Changed #12 Rebellious to make the Leader the one who rolls.

Edit 4: Changed the controversial 2. Treacherous result. Switched Disillusioned and Greedy. Added racial modifiers the Ambitious result.

The oft mentioned Lost a Challenge Chart:

Roll 1d6

1-2 The hero is either killed or leaves Mordheim, never to return. If this roll is the result of a failed assassination attempt or a duel, the warband may keep the hero's equipment. In all other cases the hero and all his equipment are gone.

3-4. The Hero becomes a hired sword. He leaves with all his equipment. More info to follow.

5. The Hero backs down and will stay....for now. If the hero rolling was the leader, then he accepts his new subordinate role....for now.

6. The hero has an amazing change of heart and a new found loyalty to the leader. The hero does not need to make any more Experience Tests as long as the current leader is in power.

Modify this as follows:

SOS and Dwarfs add +1

If the hero is forced to roll because of a result of 2. Treacherous or 5. Ambitious, then apply -1

If the hero is a former leader, apply -1

If the hero rolls because of 3. Pious, 7. Disillusioned, or 8. Weary, add +1

I do like the side effects you've added with the "Lost a Challenge" chart (I was wondering where it was).

I think I would let the loser keep his equipment in the event of a 3-4, though. Oddly, this is what we've done occasionally with heroes from warbands that get disbanded, it's kind of fun though.

"let the loser keep his equipment?"


The hero who lost the challenge, or the losing warband?