Topic: How would you run a siege of a city in your campaign?

[Druss_the_Legend]

I am going for a short 3-4 day or perhaps up to 3-4 wk siege.

Im interested to hear how other GMs would run a siege in their game.
My plan is to give the party mini quests while defending the city. They will have some agency over what quests to take on and the success or failure of these smaller quests will effect the outcome of the war. Ill come up with a simple system for casualties on each side as the war progresses, give the PCs opportunities to participate in a few brief skirmishes and also provide a chance of reinforcements from nearby allied regions arriving to help.

here are some m notes about real sieges...
Siege warfare in the Middle Ages could vary significantly in duration depending on several factors such as the size of the defending force, the strength of the fortifications, availability of supplies, and the strategic importance of the location.

Generally, sieges could last anywhere from a few days to several months or even years in extreme cases. Factors influencing the duration included:

Size and Strength of the Garrison: A well-defended castle or fortified city with a substantial garrison could hold out for a long time, necessitating a prolonged siege.

Supply Lines: Both the besiegers and the defenders needed a secure supply of food, water, and other provisions. The longer a siege continued, the more strained these supplies could become.

Siege Tactics and Technology: Advances in siege tactics, such as the development of siege engines like trebuchets and battering rams, influenced how quickly fortifications could be breached. Technological advancements often determined the duration of a siege.

Political and Strategic Considerations: Sometimes, besieging forces were under pressure to resolve a siege quickly due to other military or political concerns. Conversely, defenders might hold out longer if reinforcements were expected or if their defense had broader strategic implications.

Negotiations and Surrender: In some cases, sieges were resolved through negotiation rather than outright assault, which could shorten their duration significantly.

Therefore, while some sieges might be resolved relatively swiftly, others could drag on for months or even years depending on the circumstances. Each siege was a unique combination of military strategy, logistical challenges, and political factors that determined its duration.

[MisterK]

A quick siege is not a real siege : either it's an assault, or a betrayal that opens the gates.

War machines may play a role, but the main factor in a siege is attrition : who will run out of resources first. Because attacking a well-defended position is a losing proposition for the attacker - and the defender knows it.  So you make sure the defender cannot resupply, and you try to resupply as much as you can yourself, and wait until hunger, thirst, or disease makes manning the walls impossible and the defender surrender.

And the same logic applies to the defender : outlast the attackers. Unless a relieving force arrives, that's the only way.

So basically, it ends up  with a few event stereotypes :
- a surprise assault on a vulnerable point in the defences, at any point in the siege / a surprise assault to destroy war machines or kill a key member of the opposing command.
- a major assault *very early* in the siege, in order to avoid a lengthy siege altogether.
- uncovering a betrayal before the gates are opened by treason / "convincing" some of the besieged to betray their side and open the gates
- procuring supplies.
- Deny the opponents supplies.
- discussing politics to shore up your own side (morale tends to waver during a siege, both for the attackers and defenders)
- fending off a relief force / helping the relief force break the siege.
- assassination
- preventing disaster (outbreak of disease, water poisoning...)

But you have to pace the siege : determine the siege duration, major shifts and outcome if the PCs aren't here.  Then, introduce key points in which they can alter the course of the siege and go on from there. The mood of a siege, the atmosphere, becomes much more interesting if the siege lasts - when the main foe is not the opponent, but the lack of supplies, reinforcements, and flagging morale.

[Druss_the_Legend]

A quick siege is not a real siege : either it's an assault, or a betrayal that opens the gates.

War machines may play a role, but the main factor in a siege is attrition : who will run out of resources first. Because attacking a well-defended position is a losing proposition for the attacker - and the defender knows it.  So you make sure the defender cannot resupply, and you try to resupply as much as you can yourself, and wait until hunger, thirst, or disease makes manning the walls impossible and the defender surrender.

And the same logic applies to the defender : outlast the attackers. Unless a relieving force arrives, that's the only way.

So basically, it ends up  with a few event stereotypes :
- a surprise assault on a vulnerable point in the defences, at any point in the siege / a surprise assault to destroy war machines or kill a key member of the opposing command.
- a major assault *very early* in the siege, in order to avoid a lengthy siege altogether.
- uncovering a betrayal before the gates are opened by treason / "convincing" some of the besieged to betray their side and open the gates
- procuring supplies.
- Deny the opponents supplies.
- discussing politics to shore up your own side (morale tends to waver during a siege, both for the attackers and defenders)
- fending off a relief force / helping the relief force break the siege.
- assassination
- preventing disaster (outbreak of disease, water poisoning...)

But you have to pace the siege : determine the siege duration, major shifts and outcome if the PCs aren't here.  Then, introduce key points in which they can alter the course of the siege and go on from there. The mood of a siege, the atmosphere, becomes much more interesting if the siege lasts - when the main foe is not the opponent, but the lack of supplies, reinforcements, and flagging morale.

Cheers! loads of food for thought here. Im going to lean into the betrayal and assassination story hooks. I like the idea of the players helping hold on until a reinforcement force arrives to route the attackers but this is reliant on the PC party being successful in enough quests that impact on the siege.
Legend by David Gemmel is a great read and creates many interesting encounters throughout a long siege. I will borrow some elements from this. I want to avoid a complex and number crunchy war with lengthy dice rolling... im going for me 'snapshot' and 'small skirmish battles with more narrative rather than blow by blow long combat encounters.

[Malim]

War law?

[Druss_the_Legend]

War law?

I own war law but am going to use the battle as more of a backdrop for a series of small quests. i want to let the players have some input into the final outcome of the war... if they complete enough side quests inside the city this will give them a modifier to the final roll to decide the success of the battle. im thinking i'll use d20s for each side. for each quest they complete they get an extra d20 advantage. Highest roll wins.

[MisterK]

I own war law but am going to use the battle as more of a backdrop for a series of small quests. i want to let the players have some input into the final outcome of the war... if they complete enough side quests inside the city this will give them a modifier to the final roll to decide the success of the battle. im thinking i'll use d20s for each side. for each quest they complete they get an extra d20 advantage. Highest roll wins.

I would use a slightly different method (but that's just me): the missions they attempt change the backdrop. Basically, you do not need a roll to determine the outcome of the final battle - you have to decide, according to the strength of each side and the events that took place during the siege (missions), how the situation is when the decision occurs - is it a decisive counterattack to behead the opponents, an uncertain sortie and field battle, a siege to the last defenders, a relentless and merciless slaughter ? And when you've got that picture, ask yourself what opportunity you want to give your characters according to that picture: lead the charge to the opposing commanders, create a diversion while the defenders make that sortie, perform a series of delaying tactical fights to give the defending commanders a chance to flee through a secret passage, or disguise themselves and try to save as many people as they can from a grisly fate ?

In my opinion, the last battle should be handled the same way as the other scenes: set the stage, give them a goal or options, and then see how they do. At this point, you don't need to roll dice to see which way the battle will turn. You need to roll dice to see if they succeed in their final goal of the siege, the one thing they can still do given everything that happened before.

The point, I believe, is not whether or not their side wins. From a RP point of view, the point is what character their reveal during the final hours. Are they gloryhounds, avengers, last stand heroes, anonymous saviours, or cowards ?
The rest of the world will tell the story of the siege. But the characters should, first and foremost, remember how they felt when the battle finally ended.

[Druss_the_Legend]

Interesting input Mr.K.
I had not considered the option of no dice roll for the final battle. Id expect there to be 'auto victory' conditions for both sides. The possibility of a total rout on either side esp if a key objective was completed.

The invading army have one primary goal. Capture an ancient book of dark magic. It is held within the city and heavily guarded/protected. If they succeed then the campaign will take a dramatic dark turn. The Enemy will free a cabal of 5 Vampire Lords (demi-gods) who in turn will create a portal to a realm of Darkness and summon a dark god. This event will cast the game world into eternal darkness. Healing magic will cease to work and all only evil clerical magic will work normally, and even become more powerful. Magic, if it works at all will behave unpredictably and be dangerous to use. Undead will rise up in large numbers and become more powerful also.

The party will be recruited to protect the book and hunt down any infiltrators and traitors. They will be given hard choices and key mini objectives within city, some will involve defending strategic choke points, getting civilians to safe houses and bolstering the defenses of gates, bridges or tunnels that are under threat or acting as personal guard for key NPCs pivotal to the war.

I am seeing a continuum here with varying degrees of success reflected in the final battle. Fail in too many lesser objectives and the result is decided without dice, but the actions and success/failure of those actions will have a cumulative effect on the final battle. Imo there sill will be a middle ground where the dice will decide the story/outcome but the players should def have an opportunity to avoid the result being decided by chance. The important thing here is the players CAN impact the outcome of the final battle... but the odds of them doing so are small.