I'm thinking about using a small siege scenario in one of my next sessions.Basically, a medieval fort is encircled by a minor army of, say, a hundred men. The PCs are tasked to break the siege or atleast break it up enough to rescue some of the important NPCs trapped in the fort. They get some mercenaries (say 20 to 30 men at most, not enough to flatout fight the entire siege army), and otherwise it's up to the players how they go about it. What can I include to make this an interesting scenario and not turn it into a pure combat gauntlet? The setting is low magic medieval fantasy, the system is homebrew but basically gurps. The players will have access to some magic, nothing to fancy.Some ideas I had are:>there is a secret tunnel that the PCs can reach if they punch through some of the enemy forces>the environment is mountainous or covered by forest allowing for hit and run tactics>the sieging army isn't a coherent whole, but sits in different camps, and they can be played against one another>maybe the siege army has a main commander, and if he is taken out the army loses interest in the siegeI don't know, I think there is something here, but I feel there is some cool hook missing to make this fun.
>>98489166My GM ran something similar for us recently.We ended up drowning half the besieging army by attacking and destroying the dam they'd built upriver to prevent water flowing into the castle moat.
>>98489166You've given them the hook already, the NPC trapped inside the castle. The players should be given space to come up with creative solutions to the problem in front of them. You could give them multiple different obvious paths forward, but make sure to place a barrier of some kind in the way (it can be a metaphorical barrier).>River running through city, iron gates block each entrance (city needs to get water somehow)>(like you mentioned) Forgotten escape tunnel leading towards main castle, guarded by monster in small dungeon (more loot?)>Siege engines/siege ladders stored in a conspicuous place, guarded on all sides by the siege army (direct fight would mean certain death, perhaps disguise/persuasion/stealth is required?)The paths should be obvious, figuring out how to navigate them should be a challenge.
Maybe it was meant to be a quick hit and run raid and they're nervous of reinforcements? If the party can make it look convincing, eg maybe the old trick of lots of fake campfires might help? Ambushing foragers wearing different liveries and shouting to imaginary comrades that they've found them, ride and tell m'Lords Notreal and Madeup to bring their forces to bear (letting them get back to camp to spread the good news of course)? Obviously won't be THAT simple, but...
>>98489166Is there a time limit? The usual strat was usually to starve the defenders out. Unless the were willing to... you know.
>>98489297By hook I didn't mean a narrative hook. I meant filling the scenarios with a bunch of details that the players can pick up on to integrate them into their plans.
>>98489166The 100 man siege army is getting reinforcements. The players need to send out their own call for reinforcements but the beacon that would send out the signal is outside the city and the enemy army, unbeknownst to them, are unintentionally guarding it. There is an important NPC hidden in the fort. The players need to smuggle them out immediately before the enemy army digs in. However the quandary is that escorting this NPC out as well as themselves means the players could be dooming the fort with their absence. There are catacombs nearby with powerful wards on it. The players could push past the catacomb's defenses, destroy the wards and let the undead inside surge against the enemy army but then afterwards you have to deal with a bunch of undead roaming the land. The fort was built on top another, ancient fort. This ancient fort has a secret entrance that leads to the fort and can be run as a classic dungeon crawl. The siege army seems suddenly desperate to get inside the fort, even to the point of negotiating. In can be inferred that something so dangerous that even a 100 man army feel compelled to flee into fortifications is approaching. The conundrum is that they are still a threat to you but the greater threat takes precedence. Deep in the woods are terrible and unknown entities as old as the world itself. The players can appeal to these powers but for a price or task. The enemy army is reliant on horses or have brought livestock to sustain a long siege. You can either kill or steal the horses/livestock away dealing a massive blow to their supplies. Are you're players inside the fort or outside?
>>98489166If you can position your forces within hearing distance but safely out of range, you could split them in rotating shifts that take turns banging loudly all day long, this will unnerve the defenders and undermine their morale.
>>98489166It's been a while since I read it, but isn't this literally one of the big action heavy chapters in Ivanhoe? When Robin Hood and his men besiege Front-de-Bœuf's castle to rescue Rowena, Rebecca et al? As far as I remember what happens there is that the jester Wamba manages to infiltrate the castle as a priest or something. Maybe worth looking at, I remember the mini-siege being quite well detailed.
>>98489357Oh I quite like this one.
>>98489166Time limit cannibal has the right idea. Pressure. >besiegers are making a trebuchet or wall destroying siege engine, defenders can see it but can't get to it, >siege engineer is part of one faction, siege commander is part of anotherAdds a time pressure, an objective with a triangle of interests and a need for resolution but not a railroad of how to get there. Other details that could add more. >besieging force is running out of supplies, sending out supply gathering raids>besieged wizard wants nothing to do with any of it, stuck inside, wants out, might be convinced to help one side or the other >Wet section of trenchworks, only one pump, pump keeps breaking >enemy at the gates style bowman duel between sides
>>98489779But I don't want to undermine the morale's defenders.
bump
>>98489764>Are you're players inside the fort or outside?Oh, I just realized I didn't clarify that in the OP. The PCs are outside and are tasked to break the siege.
Besiegers shouldn't be a massive grouped up blob of soldiers, especially with their camps. You'll have your typical camp with followers, people foraging wood/food, scouts/guards all over the perimeter/roads with horns ready to blow, people in the barricades ready to sling an arrow at anyone peaking too much over the battlements, peasants running around with buckets filled with offals to dump far away from the camp so it doesn't stink too much. Palisades/Stakewalls and trenches would be dug facing the most obvious routes of attack, such as facing the fort to prevent the defenders from sallying forth and destroying any equipment, or to where a relief army would most likely approach. The attackers would likely hold feasts and play music very, very loudly so the defenders couldn't sleep, whilst bolstering their own moral. Men would be dedicated to blow the horn close to the walls night and day, or constantly throw insults to nettle the defenders. The camp would be fairly lax with guards posted at the entrances due to sheer numbers, but as you get deeper to where the nobility are, the defenses would become more robust and the guards more observant. Battle Standards/King's Standard's would be viciously guarded by trusted veterans, many times in history having those fall during battle has caused a route for those who've could've won. Baggage carts and wagons would constantly rotate to feed the besieger to supplement a stockpile they've taken with them. The biggest threats to the besiegers would be plague or an surprise attack by an outside army. Food and pay disappearing isn't something that happens overnight, and even if it did, it wouldn't have any effect until later, and therefore can be rectified. .
>>98494522Thanks, some good points. Nice to see /tg/ is still capable of effortposting.
>>98494522All very good points, but I feel like it should be pointed out that what you're describing here is an all out protracted siege, which is something of a fail state for the besiegers as well. Ideally you want to take a fortification swiftly, either by surprise, negotiation, or pulling off an underhanded coup-de-main. Actually having to starve out the defenders is less than ideal, specially for smaller forces engaged in private wars like OP is describing, because it pins down a large part of your troops and costs a lot of money to keep going, risking that you might end up spending more on this private feud than you're liable to get out of it in the end anyway.
>>98489166War stories - in my experience - are most interesting when you let the pc's act as spec ops, basically, so your ideas are good, assassination mission, ambushes, supply line sabotage, that kind of thing. Maybe they can do a fakeout with their smaller force to divert the siegers, allowing the pc's to slip into the fort.
>>98489438This is sadly the average reading comprehension of modern /tg/How we went from one of the best boards to one of the dumbest is beyond me.
>>98495242Low-iq botslop is probably the answer, just like every other board and the internet as a whole. Never forget they said they wanted to gradually make this place less interesting to it's users.
>>98495242We're still one of the most intelligent boards, relatively speaking. The other boards are just that much dumber (grim).
>>98495216OP here, the scenario actually is part of a larger war and the sieging army isn't the main army of that faction, but just a group sent out to raid one fort in the outskirts.
