Operations in Cataphracts

This blog post is about Cataphracts and has mostly spun out of a discussion on the Cataphracts HQ discord server. I'm also getting ready to run my third very small cataphracts game (get in touch if you're interested in playing). I previously wrote about my first experience running a small game here and have since run a second game that I really need to write up in full. Instead I'm writing specifically about operations in that game.

If you haven't played Cataphracts you probably need to read the rules for this post to make sense. But if you don't, operations are a rule that allows players to spend money in order to accomplish things not defined by the rules. The rules for operations are quite vague and open to interpretation, and I thought it might be useful to see how I've run them.

Different Cataphracts games also run very differently - the game draws people from a very wide range of game cultures, even within a single game. I run small games that last about a month with one referee and a small numbers of players, so far no more than 15. Most games are bigger, longer and more complex. I also enjoy a wide range of cataphracts games. But when I run this game I mostly run it as Problem solving, non-authorial, and world-favouring. This puts it more on the RPG side of things than most conventional wargames, probably more than is to the taste of many cataphracts players. My personal RPG background as a player is mostly a mix of OSR and story games (along with a wide range of solo games and also D&D 4E), but I almost exclusively GM OSR games, and that comes through in how I run Cataphracts. The principles of Cairn have been particularly influential on how I run games in general, though I don't follow it strictly.

I'm ok with operations introducing wildcards players have to deal with. I don't run Cataphracts as a game that is entirely solvable by reading the rules, and as a player I have enjoyed surprises, rolling with the punches, and heavily unbalanced situations. While as a player I strive to win, for me it's still more about the journey than the destination. This is not how everyone likes to play, however, and I think it's a good idea to think about how you would run operations and other similar aspects that are heavy on referee preference in advance, and communicate that to players.

This is all under development and likely to evolve as I run more games. Some of this is sorting out my thoughts in preparation for running a new game. I'll probably revise this all after running another game.

General Principles

Again, this is one method of running operations. Assume everything I say is qualified accordingly.

The most common operation and the one most likely to succeed is to gather information.

Operations should supplement but not replace the main mechanics of the game. Operations that can have a substantial impact should be very risky and expensive, and most suitable as a last-ditch effort.

Operations should always be optional. It is assumed all commanders are taking all reasonable precautions. There are no counter-operations.

You might be able to do a shoddy job with less money, but you cannot do a better job with more money unless you can describe a specific mechanism by which more money would help.

Relatedly, operations are only possible if you can describe a specific mechanism by which they can happen. Even if I am not running them via a tabletop RPG per se, they should be thought about as a sort of brief and extremely rules light RPG rather than a button to press. Some operations may only be possible by acquiring resources that are difficult to obtain. Some operations may require that you personally risk your life to carry them out, or that you convince another commander to undertake a particular course of action.

Anything that could plausibly happen is possible, but that is not the same thing as being likely to happen or succeed, or a good use of your resources.

A plan is more likely to be considered plausible if you don't introduce any new elements into the world or if you only introduce things which are common and expected.

You can always ask. Be ready to hear no, but I'm glad you're engaged in the game.

The Process

First, I decide if what the player is asking is plausible and what would be required. I think about what elements in the world might allow it, and what might be missing that the players are assuming is there. At this point I may go back to the player and ask clarifying questions or set conditions they would need to achieve first. At least half of operations that players propose do not get past this point.

If they are able to satisfy the preconditions, next I come up with a series of possible outcomes. If the entire operation happens in one step, I sort them from best to worst, and assign probabilities.

If the operation happens in several steps, I list the things that can go wrong in order, and the lower you roll, the earlier things go wrong.

With the number of players, it amounted to one operation every few days and was a fun diversion from the usual orders. With a much larger game, it probably doesn't scale.

Some examples

Looking back, I was maybe more permissive than I'd be now. However, this gives you an idea of how I structure them and think about them.

These are also going to make way more sense when I write up the report from the whole game, but oh well.

Example: Not able to meet the preconditions of damming a river

I asked them with what - a dam needs a lot of material. After some back and forth, I agreed that if they found a really substantial source of wood, they could spend some time cutting down trees and building a big dam, beaver-style. Unfortunately there wasn't a forest nearby, so they sailed upstream to find one, and ended up fighting a series of battles instead and never had a chance to build that dam.

I was more permissive because it was a short game - in a longer game it would be harder. I was slightly stretching the plausibility of how fast a dam could be built.

Example: Finding straightforward information

Someone wanted to find what was happening in two nearby cities. To do this, they sent someone to go scouting around at a distance.

They would have to pass vaguely near two enemy commanders to do this. Aside from that, the task seemed rather easy. So I decided:

The expected outcome here is that the commander should get at least some useful information. Unortunately for them, they rolled a 3, so it failed. The enemy who captured them never investigated what it was all about.

You don't need this complicated a table, but I enjoyed making it.

Example: a crazy last-ditch plan

I had previously told the commander that if they were going to try and steal the crown, it would be possible as an operation, but it would come with substantial personal risk.

And how I dealt with it:

He rolled a 3, and then was executed. Pretend that I didn't forget that a 2d6 table starts at 2.

This is one example of how I see operations being used - a wild last attempt to try and get back in the game when everything is hopeless. If Edart had succeeded, he'd have a chance of achieving his faction's goal, but the Viceroy could still chase him down and a battle would probably ensue. It required he put his life on the line to get that one last chance. The operation was grounded in the circumstances of the world and in several weeks of establishing trust.

Most importantly, the best way by far for Edart and his faction to have gotten the crown would have been to have attacked and captured the Viceroy in a conventional way at basically any point in the past when they had ample opportunities to do so, before Edart got left with no other choices.

Example: non-straightforward reconnaisance

The plan here was to go find Earu's crown. The crown was, incidentally, on Earu's person the entire time and the faction leader already knew that, but the person in question - Narp - didn't. So he hired someone to go find out. His plan was to go poke around the castle and then if that didn't work, kidnap one of the Viceroy's advisors (!!).

Operation to go spy on Viceroy Earu
2: get captured by Eopai
3: Get captured by Eomeo
4-5: it's impossible to find anything because the city has been thoroughly looted, go to kidnapping
6-7: confirm it's not here, send a letter, go to kidnapping
8+: confirm it's not here and was with Earu, return to Duxe for further instructions

He rolled a 7. The agent failed to find the crown in the city (because it was on the Viceroy's person), sent back a letter to that effect, and then kidnapped someone.

Kidnapping operation:
2: Get caught, agent dies
3: Get caught
4-6: Get official, alert city
7+: quiet success
2d6

And rolled a 10. Remarkably, the kidnapping went well and they found out that the crown was being carried by Earu. Also they could have found that out by sending a few letters, all of this was completely unnecessary, but it was fun.

Assassinations?

I only allowed one actual assassination attempt. In this case, it was against a target whose army was in the process of being completely destroyed. It seemed plausible to me that any precautions he'd set up were not holding through. The assassination failed, but the target died for unrelated reasons shortly after after his army was utterly destroyed. (The background here is that the target had summoned a kraken and then refused to flee. )

I think assassinations should be possible, but extremely unlikely, much like in real life, especially in the time period considered. While assassinations exist in real life, in the time period considered it was almost never how wars resolved.

In a few other cases I said they could attempt it if they were able to achieve some precondition that they were never able to do. I think even so, in the future, I'd be stricter.

Other operations

Narp did a much more straightforward operation to find out his faction's goals by forging a letter to allow him to rifle through his lead commander's documents while he was gone, at the risk of his lead commander finding out. He managed to completely pull it off (but later confessed to his lead commander).

There was an operation to basically bribe locals to give basic information about the local area, which had no risk attached to it other than them not having useful information to give. The player got medium useful information.

Thoughts post game

Overall I think the approach was fun for everyone involved, and the operations added some spice to the game without becoming the meal. They gave the opportunity for players who wanted to to try creative ideas, but no player suffered from not doing operations. The game was ultimately decided by some clever diplomacy and a series of battles, not operations. However, operations still had an impact on how the game felt to the players more subjectively.

I think maybe I should have made some of the wackier ideas a bit harder in the future. Rolls for operations for whatever reason ended up being pretty low; I think the typical outcome should be that they fail in entertaining ways.

This will probably seem like a fairly arbitrary distinction, but I would generally like for anything that could happen in the logic of the game world to be possible, which is a bit different from being meaningfully a part of the game.

Next is to see how well this all stands up with a new group of players and a second game. Incidentally, if you're interested in the next round of miniphracts, contact me.

Written May 6 2026