This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay  (Read 15352 times)

mightybrain

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • m
  • Posts: 454
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #165 on: December 16, 2020, 07:11:44 AM »
But it's also true that in real life, sword fighters pay a lot of careful attention to their footing and stance. That doesn't necessarily mean that the player of a sword fighter in an RPG should always be tracking what their character's footing and stance is. It's something that could be abstracted away, like many other factors.

I'd prefer that. Sword fighting in D&D has always seemed lacking to me. Which is a shame considering how much of your time you spend enganged in it as a fighter.

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4013
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #166 on: December 16, 2020, 08:51:12 AM »
This where I really don't regret there being not too hard to acquire magic items that just supply infinite ammo or return when thrown (which balances out nicely with the unlimited cantrips/attack spells). Sure, they cost more than a thousand arrows do, but for some, it's a worthwhile expense.
We wound up doing precisely that for the Pathfinder archer I mentioned (it was an NPC henchman, but still). Mostly because otherwise, we had to hire a guy whose sole job was to carry multiple quivers of arrows and hand them off.

Which, I suppose, is sorta realistic (modern infantry units with an MG will have one guy carry the gun and another carrying ammo), but still.

Azraele

  • Smug bastard
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #167 on: December 16, 2020, 08:57:03 AM »
Quote
I'd prefer that. Sword fighting in D&D has always seemed lacking to me. Which is a shame considering how much of your time you spend enganged in it as a fighter.

Burning Wheel has a famously involved and tense combat system where the participants secretly choose dueling stances and attack gambits prior to striking, complete with a rich chart of outcomes for different strategy match-ups and mismatches.

It totally falls apart depicting anything aside form 1-on-1 duels. There's an unfortunate rule of diminishing returns to this level of detail.

Ultimately the question becomes, do you want more tactically intense swordfights between fewer participants, or less engaging but more epic-scoped encounters?

I mean, there's thankfully a game for either answer and probably one for many along the spectrum of the extremes. But there are real trade-offs when we're talking about using our simple meat-computer-brains to make something function at a table.
Joel T. Clark: Proprietor of the Mushroom Press, Member of the Five Emperors
Buy Lone Wolf Fists! https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/416442/Tian-Shang-Lone-Wolf-Fists

mightybrain

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • m
  • Posts: 454
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #168 on: December 16, 2020, 09:40:40 AM »
Burning Wheel has a famously involved and tense combat system where the participants secretly choose dueling stances and attack gambits prior to striking, complete with a rich chart of outcomes for different strategy match-ups and mismatches.

We did try that but didn't find it very functional. Also, The One Ring has different stances / positions that confer various bonuses and penalties. But in both cases these systems didn't work in combination with miniatures. (That's not a problem for me, but my group gets lost without a tactical visualisation.)

rytrasmi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1075
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #169 on: December 16, 2020, 09:59:12 AM »
The "we" in that sentence is whatever group is playing. If some people in the group have different preferences, then they have to compromise somehow. Specifically, let's say the GM has more fun if the players track individual arrows -- but the players enjoy the game more if they don't. Either the GM can stick to his demand and the players compromise so the GM can have more fun, or the maybe the GM relaxes and the players get to have more fun.
I've played at many different tables and I can't recall a discussion taking player with regard to "fun" as to arrows or other consumables. When consumables are brought up, it's often the GM stating his table rules for this stuff.

Or what often happens is one player says, "Gee, how many arrows did this bow come with? Sorry I haven't been keeping track" and then the GM says something like "Don't worry about it" probably because there's no practical way to retcon 3 combats just to account for arrows and the GM has more important things on his mind at the moment. And so it's decided. Players who do enjoy a more detailed level of play are drawn into the compromise by a lazy or innocently clueless player and a complacent and overworked GM.

Look at it this way, since you also GM: Imagine if all your players tracked this stuff without being asked or reminded. You suddenly have a zero-effort and possibly interesting story hook when someone announces they've run out of arrows/food/torches/spell components. If this was handed to you as GM, would you really just ignore it in the name of "fun"?
The worms crawl in and the worms crawl out
The ones that crawl in are lean and thin
The ones that crawl out are fat and stout
Your eyes fall in and your teeth fall out
Your brains come tumbling down your snout
Be merry my friends
Be merry

Azraele

  • Smug bastard
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #170 on: December 16, 2020, 10:03:44 AM »
We did try that but didn't find it very functional. Also, The One Ring has different stances / positions that confer various bonuses and penalties. But in both cases these systems didn't work in combination with miniatures. (That's not a problem for me, but my group gets lost without a tactical visualisation.)

Part of that is because playing with miniatures is at cross-purpose to the kind of design you're asking for, which helps to enrich a purely descriptive combat space. The development for tac mini's games went off in a different design direction, like 4th edition or 13th age (both fun as hell to play with minis, but difficult without). L5R 4th edition has some development in the "take a stance and it gives you benefits/tradeoffs" direction too, but again, it's designed to be lightweight and playable in a theatre-of-the-mind style way; it'd probably be extremely tedious in put miniatures out for it.

As a bit of advice, you may find something like Fate's "Zones" concept to be a good bridge of the gap, because it combines simple mapping with meaningful description. You may be able to use that rules-tech with a game like those mentioned upthread and get the best of both worlds. I wish you luck in your quest at any rate; when and if you find your grail, I hope you'll share it around so your fellow questers can benefit from it as well.
Joel T. Clark: Proprietor of the Mushroom Press, Member of the Five Emperors
Buy Lone Wolf Fists! https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/416442/Tian-Shang-Lone-Wolf-Fists

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #171 on: December 16, 2020, 02:54:57 PM »
The "we" in that sentence is whatever group is playing. If some people in the group have different preferences, then they have to compromise somehow. Specifically, let's say the GM has more fun if the players track individual arrows -- but the players enjoy the game more if they don't. Either the GM can stick to his demand and the players compromise so the GM can have more fun, or the maybe the GM relaxes and the players get to have more fun.
I've played at many different tables and I can't recall a discussion taking player with regard to "fun" as to arrows or other consumables. When consumables are brought up, it's often the GM stating his table rules for this stuff.

Or what often happens is one player says, "Gee, how many arrows did this bow come with? Sorry I haven't been keeping track" and then the GM says something like "Don't worry about it" probably because there's no practical way to retcon 3 combats just to account for arrows and the GM has more important things on his mind at the moment. And so it's decided. Players who do enjoy a more detailed level of play are drawn into the compromise by a lazy or innocently clueless player and a complacent and overworked GM.

In my experience, it's also not usually been something explicitly discussed - but rather, players just do it or not, and the GMs speak up only to imply they should be doing it. But when I say "don't worry about it" as a GM -- it's not because I'm complacent and/or overworked. It's because I genuinely mean that I'm genuinely not into that level of detail for the game, and am happy to handwave it.

This is the problem of differing preferences and experiences. I believe you when you say that you prefer to always track exact ammunition counts. You probably gravitate to groups with similar preferences to you, and our experiences are different. But neither your experiences nor mine represent everyone's preferred way of playing.

I believe you when you say about your preferred way to play and have fun. But in my experience, I've played with a lot of gamers who were happy to leave off those sort of details. I have been in games where I've done that level of tracking, as well as games where I haven't. For me, when I choose not to do the detailed tracking, it's because I understand that it's more fun for me that way.


Look at it this way, since you also GM: Imagine if all your players tracked this stuff without being asked or reminded. You suddenly have a zero-effort and possibly interesting story hook when someone announces they've run out of arrows/food/torches/spell components. If this was handed to you as GM, would you really just ignore it in the name of "fun"?

If my players preferred to track everything, then I'd be willing to accommodate them - so yes, I'd be fine with accepting that they were out of arrows or food. But conversely, if they weren't tracking that level of detail, then I'd also be fine with it. It's not that I'm secretly seething and wishing that they would track it.

mightybrain

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • m
  • Posts: 454
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #172 on: December 17, 2020, 05:56:40 AM »
I had a player say they wanted to use a spell, I don't remember which one. But at the time I remembered that he'd already used that spell 3 times in the adventure. So I asked how many spell slots he had left. And it was at that point that we realised that he hadn't been tracking them. In fact, it turned out he'd never tracked them, going back decades of play and editions, and no one had noticed or mentioned it before.

He tracks them now. The other players make sure of it.

Kyle Aaron

  • high-minded hack
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9487
  • high-minded hack
    • The Viking Hat GM
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #173 on: December 17, 2020, 08:22:02 AM »
I have just now written about my stoppage rules here.
The Viking Hat GM
Conflict, the adventure game of modern warfare
Wastrel Wednesdays, livestream with Dungeondelver

Abraxus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2434
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #174 on: December 17, 2020, 08:29:40 AM »
In my experience, it's also not usually been something explicitly discussed - but rather, players just do it or not, and the GMs speak up only to imply they should be doing it. But when I say "don't worry about it" as a GM -- it's not because I'm complacent and/or overworked. It's because I genuinely mean that I'm genuinely not into that level of detail for the game, and am happy to handwave it.

Seconded. I am both and playing running PF 1E and at higher levels their is much more to keep track of in terms of npcs and encounters. Unless it's important to the story at the time I don't keep track of ammo or supplies

This is the problem of differing preferences and experiences. I believe you when you say that you prefer to always track exact ammunition counts. You probably gravitate to groups with similar preferences to you, and our experiences are different. But neither your experiences nor mine represent everyone's preferred way of playing.

To be honest it't not really a problem. It way too many players in rpgs especially D&D where their style of play and/or running the game is the right and only way to play. The difference between both sides is the side that handwaves or does not want to track ammo and supplies takes a live and left be attitude. The other "your doing it wrong and it's because your lazy, your players are entitled, you want to play video games... (insert more rationalizations as to why their way is the one true way) . That kind of bullshit is not going to convince me or anyone else of your position.

Eirikrautha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #175 on: December 17, 2020, 10:58:30 AM »
The difference between both sides is the side that handwaves or does not want to track ammo and supplies takes a live and left be attitude.
Dude, you are apparently new to the internet.  You may take a "live-and-let-live" attitude towards those who want to track ammo, but that is not representative of the discussions I've had on the matter.  There's pretty equal amounts of "one true way"-ism on both sides of pretty much any argument about RPGs.  Ain't nobody on the side of angels in this hobby.  I'll need serious documentation of any assertion to the contrary...

Kyle Aaron

  • high-minded hack
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9487
  • high-minded hack
    • The Viking Hat GM
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #176 on: December 17, 2020, 05:58:27 PM »
that is not representative of the discussions I've had on the matter.
We are not having those discussions, we are having this discussion. It's always more productive to contend with what people have actually said in the conversation you're having now, rather than bringing your baggage from previous discussions, opening it up and scattering it everywhere to get in people's way.
The Viking Hat GM
Conflict, the adventure game of modern warfare
Wastrel Wednesdays, livestream with Dungeondelver

Wicked Woodpecker of West
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • ?
  • Posts: 299
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #177 on: December 17, 2020, 06:47:34 PM »
Quote
What sets RPGS apart for me is the immersion factor, and here again my own experience is that immersion is best served by a sense of danger via potential loss, and the strategic engagement therefrom. My own experience with more story based games has been that they result in a more disjointed and narcissistic sort of immersion, as each player dwells more on how their own character looks in the story, rather than what their character might achieve in the game.

There is such risk, but still story-based game can be very risky, more than simulationist one, and aspects of narcissism exist in any kind of games as a risk - I've seen lot of stories about narcissistic drama-queens who manage to disrupt game without any story-based-mechanics to help them. I mean D&D 5e is not storytelling game mechanically speaking.

Good solution is strict system of believes, virtues, vices, relationships within team, and GM keeping good spotlight division on such things.

Quote
Apparently hash marks are difficult.

And boring ;)

Quote
Additionally, the focus on the character's choices or moral systems as guides for choices seems the best method of achieving immersion, as opposed to the character-behavior focus I see on internet "shows" about gaming.  I don't have to be "in the moment" in my characters head, or talk in funny voices, to be immersed in them.  I need to understand how they would react to the present situation, what choices and priorities they would make, and how those choices relate to their moral and personal goals.  That's what "playing your character" looks like to most players, I think.

I'd not call it as much character-behaviour focus - as your system also encompass it maybe even more, and more "bad acting focus".


Quote
Come up with all the highfalutin game theory reasons to excuse not tracking arrows, but at the end of the day, if you are playing a game where arrows are on the price list, and you are declaring a shot, then rolling a die, then doing mental arithmetic, then announcing a hit or a miss, and then the GM has to fucking update some hit points, you sure as hell can also make a tally mark you lazy bastard. Christ some people are babies.

YES. WE ARE LAZY. Get over it, simulationist bastard. We're here to have fun, not make chores :P

Quote
What do you mean "we"? Your GM tracks a shit-ton of stuff you never hear about.

This is why I posed the question the way I did.

Not necessarily. Both GM and players can ditch counting arrows both for PCs and enemies.

Quote
One of the worst arguments. There's lots of 'work' involved in 'fun'. Tracking the stats of your favorite baseball team. Creating spreadsheets of stats for encounters. Collating data on the efficiency of ship upgrades. Calculating the most effective use of an action.

Sometimes there is, and sometimes there is not.

Quote
Notably the GM is usually involved in a lot of 'work' to create a campaign and each adventure. Players have to create characters.

Depends. I mean you can play without campaign and adventures - New Style games like Blades in the Dark promotes it quite much, which limits amount of Game Master prep.
Or you can take ready adventure / campaign, there are quite a lot - I'm running D&D 3.5/Pathfinder game, and bless people for various ready content because damn it would be a chore :P


Quote
Buuut we have a shared agreement on the rules to facillitate play. We agree that characters get X actions per turn, that a strength score means Y modifier to damage.
If I want to play D&D, but I dislike tracking ammo, but there's a rule to track ammo, who gets to decide if we track ammo as a party or not? Do we each get to decide which rule to use for our characters? How does that work?

Simply - you ignore rules your team dislike. That's called houserules. For instance my table houseruled changing spell slots for mana points.
As long as it's not one player changing rules - who cares really? It's not official sports, you can change things a lot.
One of my fellow players/GM is working on D&D with 12 attributes for instance. Sure it's not official and by the book - but... who cares?

Quote
Right in front of me is the ALIEN RPG book. Inside the book are the rules for the game. The system. As I am watching the book, I do not find it playing itself. It can't. You need players to play it. When players interact with the system, they are playing the game. The results of that game is the player/player character's own stories. If you ask most players: "What happened in the game?" Most will skimp on their system interactions, and instead talk about what happened in a narrative way. That's my point. Too many times, people conflate the SYSTEM with the PLAY. They are NOT the same thing. But sometimes people conflate one with the other, failing to realize they are doing that. Think of it this way: How many times have GMs changed/altered/augmented the rules (the system) in order to streamline or facilitate play (the game)? You see? They are NOT the same thing. That's my point.

Ok, so here we have a problem with duality of word game. Because in my understanding depends of context within sentence it can mean both System or Play/Session. Maybe that's relic of Polish, but I'm not sure. I mean most of not-RP boardgames are called boardgames not systems. So I think it can be safely argue game can be used as a synonym of System as well.
I agree with Play / System difference clearly.

For instance if you check various RPG's on Wikipedia they are in abstract described as games. Even those very abstract that are more like basic system like BRP is called "Game".


Quote
A good example of where not tracking arrows (in the name of "fun") can nerf other items and spells in the game. Another would be not tracking food and water making create food and water spells and items irrelevant.

That reminds me how I hate this spell :P

Quote
I'd prefer that. Sword fighting in D&D has always seemed lacking to me. Which is a shame considering how much of your time you spend enganged in it as a fighter.

PAG.

Ratman_tf

  • Alt-Reich Shitlord
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8331
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #178 on: December 17, 2020, 09:33:16 PM »
Quote
What sets RPGS apart for me is the immersion factor, and here again my own experience is that immersion is best served by a sense of danger via potential loss, and the strategic engagement therefrom. My own experience with more story based games has been that they result in a more disjointed and narcissistic sort of immersion, as each player dwells more on how their own character looks in the story, rather than what their character might achieve in the game.

There is such risk, but still story-based game can be very risky, more than simulationist one, and aspects of narcissism exist in any kind of games as a risk - I've seen lot of stories about narcissistic drama-queens who manage to disrupt game without any story-based-mechanics to help them. I mean D&D 5e is not storytelling game mechanically speaking.

Good solution is strict system of believes, virtues, vices, relationships within team, and GM keeping good spotlight division on such things.

Quote
Apparently hash marks are difficult.

And boring ;)

Quote
Additionally, the focus on the character's choices or moral systems as guides for choices seems the best method of achieving immersion, as opposed to the character-behavior focus I see on internet "shows" about gaming.  I don't have to be "in the moment" in my characters head, or talk in funny voices, to be immersed in them.  I need to understand how they would react to the present situation, what choices and priorities they would make, and how those choices relate to their moral and personal goals.  That's what "playing your character" looks like to most players, I think.

I'd not call it as much character-behaviour focus - as your system also encompass it maybe even more, and more "bad acting focus".


Quote
Come up with all the highfalutin game theory reasons to excuse not tracking arrows, but at the end of the day, if you are playing a game where arrows are on the price list, and you are declaring a shot, then rolling a die, then doing mental arithmetic, then announcing a hit or a miss, and then the GM has to fucking update some hit points, you sure as hell can also make a tally mark you lazy bastard. Christ some people are babies.

YES. WE ARE LAZY. Get over it, simulationist bastard. We're here to have fun, not make chores :P

Quote
What do you mean "we"? Your GM tracks a shit-ton of stuff you never hear about.

This is why I posed the question the way I did.

Not necessarily. Both GM and players can ditch counting arrows both for PCs and enemies.

Quote
One of the worst arguments. There's lots of 'work' involved in 'fun'. Tracking the stats of your favorite baseball team. Creating spreadsheets of stats for encounters. Collating data on the efficiency of ship upgrades. Calculating the most effective use of an action.

Sometimes there is, and sometimes there is not.

Quote
Notably the GM is usually involved in a lot of 'work' to create a campaign and each adventure. Players have to create characters.

Depends. I mean you can play without campaign and adventures - New Style games like Blades in the Dark promotes it quite much, which limits amount of Game Master prep.
Or you can take ready adventure / campaign, there are quite a lot - I'm running D&D 3.5/Pathfinder game, and bless people for various ready content because damn it would be a chore :P


Quote
Buuut we have a shared agreement on the rules to facillitate play. We agree that characters get X actions per turn, that a strength score means Y modifier to damage.
If I want to play D&D, but I dislike tracking ammo, but there's a rule to track ammo, who gets to decide if we track ammo as a party or not? Do we each get to decide which rule to use for our characters? How does that work?

Simply - you ignore rules your team dislike. That's called houserules. For instance my table houseruled changing spell slots for mana points.
As long as it's not one player changing rules - who cares really? It's not official sports, you can change things a lot.
One of my fellow players/GM is working on D&D with 12 attributes for instance. Sure it's not official and by the book - but... who cares?

Quote
Right in front of me is the ALIEN RPG book. Inside the book are the rules for the game. The system. As I am watching the book, I do not find it playing itself. It can't. You need players to play it. When players interact with the system, they are playing the game. The results of that game is the player/player character's own stories. If you ask most players: "What happened in the game?" Most will skimp on their system interactions, and instead talk about what happened in a narrative way. That's my point. Too many times, people conflate the SYSTEM with the PLAY. They are NOT the same thing. But sometimes people conflate one with the other, failing to realize they are doing that. Think of it this way: How many times have GMs changed/altered/augmented the rules (the system) in order to streamline or facilitate play (the game)? You see? They are NOT the same thing. That's my point.

Ok, so here we have a problem with duality of word game. Because in my understanding depends of context within sentence it can mean both System or Play/Session. Maybe that's relic of Polish, but I'm not sure. I mean most of not-RP boardgames are called boardgames not systems. So I think it can be safely argue game can be used as a synonym of System as well.
I agree with Play / System difference clearly.

For instance if you check various RPG's on Wikipedia they are in abstract described as games. Even those very abstract that are more like basic system like BRP is called "Game".


Quote
A good example of where not tracking arrows (in the name of "fun") can nerf other items and spells in the game. Another would be not tracking food and water making create food and water spells and items irrelevant.

That reminds me how I hate this spell :P

Quote
I'd prefer that. Sword fighting in D&D has always seemed lacking to me. Which is a shame considering how much of your time you spend enganged in it as a fighter.

PAG.

So where's your line? Do you track hit points? Do you use stats? Aren't those just boring number tracking?
Honestly, my sister and her friends used to play a kind of storytelling game where there were no rules, just them saying stuff. Which is fine, but there's really no game to it. And one of the letter in the acryonym is Game for a reason.
The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5048
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #179 on: December 17, 2020, 10:33:19 PM »
Greetings!

Hmmm. It seems that some people for the sake of argument like to argue from the absurd. Of course non-relevant supplies, how often you get a headache, how many bow strings you have, etc, I mean, come on. The essentials are tracked because they are worthwhile and meaningful, and can potentially have an impact on player choices and decisions. So, supplies of rations, water, arrows, flasks of oil--all of these things have a relevant impact not only on the capabilities of the individual, but also have an impact on the group functioning successfully as a team.

If players run out of rations, they need to spend time, effort, and resources hunting animals. That right there is an opportunity. On the other hand, if the players ensure they are well-stocked on rations, then they don't have to spend time, effort, and resources on hunting--they can devote such time, effort and resources towards something else, like exploring further into the Necromancer's Tower, or whatever.

Same thing with arrows. If your Ranger player runs out of arrows, the group loses a considerable source of firepower and tactical flexibility. In addition, if the Fighter or Barbarian also run out of arrows, the group can then be at a serious and even fatal disadvantage, depending on the terrain they are in and the likely opposition. Thus, not stocking up enough on arrows requires the group to cease their immediate operations, and make a return trip to the nearby town for additional restock of arrows and such. Again, why is this such a bad thing? In groups back in the day--to right now--being forced to make return trips into town for supplies is *EXCELLENT* It provides the group opportunities to roleplay more with each other, interact with group NPC's, gather information in the town or along the road, learn more knowledge, and so on. Again, all good things. In addition, being forced to actually attend to such details increases *IMMERSION* and makes the gameplay more real and meaningful, and less like a video game.

In video games, many such details are glossed over and done away with. RPG's and D&D in articular are not video games. So, embrace the details, and enjoy playing the game, and *being* a character in a fantastic world!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b